Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Apologies for the Bomb: History easily justifies what was done in Hiroshima & Nagasaki
American Thinker ^ | 08/06/2013 | Roger D. Luchs

Posted on 08/06/2013 7:48:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 next last
To: dirtboy

My uncle flew near Nagasaki a day or two after the bombing there. He said he was certain the war was going to be over very soon. He flew in PBYs or PBMs at the time from Korea I believe. He added, he did not care a whit about what happened.


51 posted on 08/06/2013 8:36:54 AM PDT by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Right now, there is a battle raging at DU over whom to believe, Oliver Stone’s revisionist Hiroshima history or the very words of the Emperor Hirohito’s speech in which he ordered a surrender specifically because of the nuke bombs.

Must now go and decontaminate.


52 posted on 08/06/2013 8:38:53 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Every estimate *I’ve* ever seen indicates that the bomb saved hundreds of thousands...maybe many hundreds of thousand of lives.Allied lives,Japanese soldiers’ lives,Japanese civilians’ lives.
53 posted on 08/06/2013 8:41:03 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama Had A City It Would Look Like Detroit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Revolting cat!; GeronL

August is Enola Gay Pride Month. Be sure to remind a liberal.


54 posted on 08/06/2013 8:42:10 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
An excellent 17 minute video of the history of the A-bombings of Japan and today's revisionist hacks by our friend, Bill Whittle, at PJTV.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56
'Jon Stewart, War Criminals & the True Story of the Atomic Bombs"

55 posted on 08/06/2013 8:42:34 AM PDT by MacNaughton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Estimates I’ve read on the projected toll of invading mainland Japan:

US KIA’s: 100K+
US casualties: over 1 million.

Japanese KIA’s (civilians included): Over 1 million.
Japanese casualties (civilians included): No estimates, just a mind-bogglingly huge mess.

Now, here’s what most of these red diaper babies never think about, which proves that they are stupid:

Let’s say we didn’t drop the A-bombs. What was our plan? We weren’t just going to sit around on ships out at sea, delivering surrender ultimatums. This whole trope of “give peace a chance” wasn’t going to work with Japan. Their military leadership was fanatical and was ready to take the entire country down the rat hole with them.

No, our plan was roughly this: LeMay had the logistics lined up to start firebombing the entire main island of Japan, starting in September, ‘45. He was going to start firebombing raids, like the ones done on Tokyo, at the north end of the island, and work his way south. The schedule was daunting - about every third day, a new city would be targeted. The bombers with the frag & napalm loads would fly over first, then the “matchstick” bombers with the magnesium flares would fly over and ignite the mess that the cast iron and napalm loads had created down below.

Estimates were that over 1 million Japanese civilians would be killed in these raids. There were over 20 cities to be targeted. Over 200K Japanese died when we immolated Tokyo, so I think the estimate of 1 million civilians killed is rather low. Japanese cities are very densely packed, and when one imagines a firestorm taking over their cities, there’s really few ways out of the situation. It becomes a huge, open air crematorium. Without a super-accurate census of the population before the event, there’s really no way to accurately estimate how many would die.

LeMay had worked very hard on lining up the logistics and plans for this effort, and LeMay was actually seriously pissed when the A-bombs just showed up on his doorstep with the 509th. If the A-bombs worked, all of the logistical effort and expense we had invested in getting ready to burn Japan to the ground was for naught. And, make no mistake, it was a huge logistic effort, and a lot of Marines died to take islands close enough to Japan to allow us to stage the materials, planes (including fighter support), people and munitions close enough to the mainland to accomplish this.

After the mainland cities had been burned to a crisp, their infrastructure bombed to ruins, *then* we would start invading.

If we had not dropped the A-bombs, I seriously doubt that Japan would have recovered to where it has today. The survivors would have been rebuilding for 20+ years longer than they had to.


56 posted on 08/06/2013 8:50:01 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Stupid people seem to forget that even in July 1945, Japan was killing 10,000 - 15,000 people PER DAY in China, Korea and southeast Asia.

I once had a serious, high-level Chinese scholar, certainly no friend of the Japanese, ask me - “ why did the USA only drop 2 atom bombs? If China had them, we would have not stopped dropping them on Japan.”

I do not doubt that is what the Emporer of Japan believed as well - the Americans would not stop until Japan was turned to glass - because that’s likely what the the likes of Tojo and Matsui would have done if they controlled the weapon.


57 posted on 08/06/2013 8:50:39 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My father finished his ETO tour in B26’s and volunteered to follow the unit to the PTO where he ended up on Okinawa, flying missions while the Marines were still fighting around the Shuri line. His unit was to be part of the invasion buildup and his last mission was dropping warning leaflets over Japan that something big would happen if they didn’t surrender.

I’ve read around a dozen books written by Marines who were part of the island campaigns and their descriptions of the fanatic behavior of the Japanese and the atrocities they committed that were an indicator of what the invasion would cost in lives.

On Peleliu, of 10,900 Japanese troops, only 19 Japanese POWs were left at the end of the campaign; the rest fought to the death or killed themselves. The last 27 Japanese holdouts on the island didn’t surrender until 1947. Marine and Army casualties on Peleliu totaled 9600 casualties, killed and wounded. The stats on Okinawa and Iwo Jima were even worse.

The bomb saved millions of lives on both sides. The Japanese should still be kissing our asses for saving their nation from total destruction. No apologies should ever be given for dropping the bombs.


58 posted on 08/06/2013 8:51:41 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

Not only was Truman told of the atrocious casualty projections but the Joint Chiefs forcast a ferocious war for the conquest of Japan that would’ve taken into the 1970’s to accomplish.My USMC Dad told me that The choices were thousands of casualties or millions of casualties,there was never any third option.


59 posted on 08/06/2013 8:52:47 AM PDT by Paddyboy (Roma Omnia Vincit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

This is usually THE day to go to Dulles and see the Enola Gay.

There’s always a crowd of both supporters and protesters. The docent led tours, when they stop in front of the Enola Gay, are taken over by Col Scott Willey (USAF ret and one of NASMs leading experts on the plane and the mission. I’ve seen him personally hand protesters their a&&es, very diplomatically and based on fact, when they try to resort to agitprop and sloganeering.

There’s a great article from years back in the Weekly Standard titled “Why Truman Dropped The Bomb”. Worth reading (can’t post the link correctly from my smartphone), it provides all the conclusive evidence needed to demonstrate that before the Nagasaki bomb the Japanese senior leadership were planning on national suicide ...


60 posted on 08/06/2013 8:55:58 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Should add, national suicide as a means of inflicting unacceptable casualties on the allies to reach a negotiated settlemet ...


61 posted on 08/06/2013 8:57:31 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Japanese had posted a large number of divisions in the South of Honshu to repel an invasion. Either 10 or 18 divisions, don’t remember how many but it would have been fatal to many in the amphibious landing.

The numbers handed to Harry Truman were probably low particularly on the Japanese side as the civilians were being trained to fight in the mountains and cities. Considering the likelihood of disease and starvation of the Japanese population the real number could have been much higher, perhaps 15 million.

It would not have been another Afghanistan but would have been another 4 years of total war with extremely high casualties. Harry’s decision was a good one and it saved many American and Japanese lives.


62 posted on 08/06/2013 8:57:56 AM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Leftists are just upset because their pals the Soviets weren’t able to get their hands on Japan.


63 posted on 08/06/2013 9:00:42 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Just War, first articulated by St Thomas Aquinas, made clear you go to war when your cause is ‘just’ and you conduct war in such a manner as to minimize suffering of the innocent.

“•The war must be fought proportionally.
This means do not use more force than necessary or kill more civilians than necessary.”
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672

http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A644672

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1996394/posts


64 posted on 08/06/2013 9:01:30 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: liege
If I remember my history correctly, the firebombings of Japanese cities killed more people and did more destruction than the A bombs. I could be wrong, though.

You're right. The firebombings killed far more people and caused much more destruction than did the nukes.

65 posted on 08/06/2013 9:04:31 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Just War, first articulated by St Thomas Aquinas, made clear you go to war when your cause is ‘just’ and you conduct war in such a manner as to minimize suffering of the innocent. “•The war must be fought proportionally. This means do not use more force than necessary or kill more civilians than necessary.”

It seems to me that the Allied bombing of cities in WWII, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were not justifiable under the Just War rubric. I don't understand why the nuclear weapons weren't used against military targets.

66 posted on 08/06/2013 9:05:19 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Very possible. They would never have submitted to McArthur’s occupation without the bomb, which turned out to conducted in a very humane and conciliatory way. Communism needs the perception of injustice and suppression to take root. The bomb and McArthur took that away from the lousy POS Commies.

It has taken them many, many years to dumb down a big segment of the masses in the US and create a gigantic chip on the shoulder of the underclass. The same bunch of cutthroats who are wrecking the lives of this class of people are the same ones who are convincing them that they are their savior. The sheer stupidity of what is happening in this country to that effect is mind-boggling and sickening.


67 posted on 08/06/2013 9:07:54 AM PDT by RatRipper (Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper

Moreover, Truman was a man who had seen the horrors of battle, up close and in person. He was a Captain of arty in WWI.

For Truman, the decision was simple:

Consideration 1: Which path led to the fewest American lives being lost?

Consideration 2: Which path led to the fastest end of the war?

I believe that if we had a POTUS who had a fancy-pants Ivy League education, they would have turned this into a naval-gazing moment, complete with a pre-fabricated sob story to tell the press. Fortunately for the US, we had a guy who had been an infantry soldier, a dirt farmer, had spent long hours in the Missouri sun looking at the rear end of a mule while he was pushing a plow through the dirt, then had been a haberdasher and a failed businessman before getting into politics. Truman might have been a Democrat, but he was arguably the last of the common men of that party to become POTUS.


68 posted on 08/06/2013 9:09:56 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There’s a great podcast called “Hardcore History” that covered this by going step-by-step through the progression of aerial bombing, starting with WW1, going through the interwar theorizing and then WW2. By the time you’re at Dresden and Tokyo, the atomic bomb is a very, very small step.


69 posted on 08/06/2013 9:12:53 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

“It seems to me that the Allied bombing of cities in WWII, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were not justifiable under the Just War rubric.”

Read “The Rape of Nanking” and get back to us on that justifiable war thingie. The Japanese occupation of China was absolutely brutal and done without any regard to “proportionality”.

The Tokyo newspaper ran a series of stories on two officers in Nanking who had a beheading contest. They got bored with it after each dispatched 140 Chinese and called it a draw.


70 posted on 08/06/2013 9:16:42 AM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

You are right on. Some of the wisest men I have ever known were simple dirt farmers . . . not highly educated or learned, but still very wise . . . . It is very surprising how much of an education you can get staring at a mules rear-end all day. We have way too many educated idiots running around this country.

I propose that an Ivy League degree should now disqualify you from elected office and government service.


71 posted on 08/06/2013 9:20:08 AM PDT by RatRipper (Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Just and Unjust Wars with Historical Illustrations by Walzer is an excellent book devoted to examining the conundrum you raised. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/just-and-unjust-wars-michael-walzer/1100923209?ean=9780465037056

My take is firebombing cities was unjust because the aim was to attack the innocent, the civilian, with no real proportional military gain.

Make no mistake, many innocent die or suffer in a just war, but as weapons become more accurate the risk of innocents suffering is reduced.

What may have been (by todays standards) an unjust use of force was not the case years ago.

For example, in WWII, to achieve a 90% Pk of a munitions factory in the middle of a city required roughly 9,000 bombs dropped from B-17s. Bombing was that inaccurate but the best we had at the time and the aim of the attack was the factory but innocents suffered. The attack was “just” as long as the military gain was worth the proportional cost to the innocent.

Today, we can achieve that same result by using one JDAM. . .with a huge reduction in the suffering of innocents (collateral damage).

Regardless, all military action is based on “proportionality,” i.e., is the military gain worth the innocent suffering?

The use of Nukes in WWII was defended, and rightly so IMHO, from a Just War perspective because the balance between how many “innocents” were to die if an invasion took place versus how many innocents would not die/suffer if a nuke was used.

(I say “innocents” because they were fanatical and in response to an invasion would take up arms to resist and thereby suffer and die in untold numbers).

Just my opinion. . .

72 posted on 08/06/2013 9:27:02 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Good point. I was there this spring and wouldn’t have missed it. Those who try to rewrite history occasionally get what they deserve, and it seems Colonel Willey is happy to be that instrument. Good for him, and thanks for your post.


73 posted on 08/06/2013 9:28:51 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Army dad. And damned proud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Had the bombs not been deployed, the Soviets would have likely conquered Korea, Hokkaido, and the northern part of Honshu before we would have been able to launch Operation Torch.

That would have made the Cold War much more dangerous.


74 posted on 08/06/2013 9:29:12 AM PDT by Thunder90 (All posts soley represent my own opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
"I don't understand why the nuclear weapons weren't used against military targets."

Hiroshima was a major port and also headquarters of the Japanese Second Army, which was responsible for the defense of southern Japan. Like Dresden, it was also a transport hub and center for troop concentration. Unfortunately for the citizens, it was also relatively undamaged and thus was selected both as a military target and as a site where the effects of the bomb could be measured.

Nagasaki was a major industrial center and produced ordnance, ships, military equipment and other war materiel. The target area at Nagasaki was in its industrial center. In fact, the bomb itself exploded between the two principal targets in the city, the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works, which produced torpedoes.

It is a liberal canard to state that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely civilian targets. As in the case of Dresden, that is not true.

75 posted on 08/06/2013 9:37:46 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Army dad. And damned proud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The best book on this subject is Richard Frank’s “Downfall, The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.” Frank, a noted historian of the Pacific War, specifically wrote this book to refute the distorted historical record in Gar Alperovitz’ “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” Alperovitz wrongly states liberal/communist dogma that:

1. The Japanese were ready to surrender;
2. The bombs were dropped because of racist motivation;
3. The bombs were dropped as a means of intimidating the USSR;

Frank goes through all of the Japanese diplomatic cables between Tokyo and their embassy in Moscow, where the Japanese were supposedly making their “peace feelers.” These cables, which we were intercepting and decoding, clearly show that the Japanese did NOT have any concrete proposals to end the war other than “we keep all that we currently occupy and you just go away.” Also, the proposals were being floated by some mid-level diplomats in Tokyo who did NOT speak for the Imperial Government. All historical evidence points to the fact that the Japanese leadership still wanted to continue the war, and more importantly, we knew it.

Second, Frank points out that the bomb was originally intended for use on Germany. So much for racial motivation.

Third, although there was some discussion between Truman and Byrnes about the effect of the use of the bomb on the USSR, all discussion among the military chiefs with Truman focused on how to end the war with Japan, and the mass of historical material pretty much proves that was Truman’s prime motivation. Reading Alexander Werth’s “Russia at War” shows where this theory came from; it came from the Russians themselves, who were, in fact, intimidated by the atomic bomb. Not the first time liberal dogma is the parroting of talking points from the communist left.

Finally, Frank shows the justification for the use of the bomb on, oddly, humanitarian reasons. The bomb convinced the Japanese leadership to end the war. Militant army leaders like Field Marshal Hata, who would have led the defense of Kyushu, changed his mind about resistance. But ONLY after the second bomb was dropped. The two bombs were necessary to prove that the bomb was not just a one-off deal.

But the bombs saved lives. Japanese lives. Literally millions of them. Not from combat, but from starvation and disease. Frank details how the submarine, naval and aerial campaign had done or within the next 60 days was going to do three things to Japan:

1. All imports of fuel, food and coal were going to be cut off;

2. All urban industrial centers had been destroyed, and;

3. All internal transportation links by rail and intercoastal shipping had been or were going to be severed.

In other words, the entire Japanese economy was about to completely collapse. What this meant was that a civilian population that was already reduced to less than subsistence rations in the summer, was about to be reduced to virtually no food at all in winter. And there would also be no fuel for heat, either.

Imagine the German siege of Leningrad, but on a national scale. The sick, young, and elderly would be the first to die. Over the winter, before an invasion of Honshu, out of a population of 80 million, as many as 20 million deaths could have occurred.

Yes, the bombs were brutal. Many people died horribly. Less than 250,000. But the use of those bombs saved 20 million lives. Liberals are not comfortable with that fact, but that fact remains.


76 posted on 08/06/2013 9:40:04 AM PDT by henkster (The 0bama regime isn't a train wreck, it's a B 17 raid on the rail yard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." - Para 81, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.

Most of the debate on use of atomic bombs on Japan misses this point. The focus of the debate is always on the bomb, not on the target. In my book A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons, I apply Just War Doctrine to the use of nuclear weapons. My conclusion: the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral, not because atomic bombs were used, but because they were targeted at cities full of noncombatants.

I once read a memoir by a Japanese submarine officer who had been stationed at a sub base near Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped on that city. He described the bombing from the standpoint of a nearby observer. Rather than attacking the city, the sub base should have been attacked. Yes, there still would have been some damage to the city, but the attack would have satisfied the Just War criterion of Discrimination, that is, attacks should be on the enemy's military forces, not on noncombatants. Whether it would have satisfied the other Just War criterion of Proportion is impossible to determine now, but my guess is, it would have. That is, the damage done to noncombatants (collateral damage, in the current vernacular) must not exceed the good done by the attack on a legitimate target.

Those who point to lives saved by the bombings are, whether they realize it or not, appealing to the Proportion criterion. Yes, the atomic bombs cost many lives, but they saved many more. However, Proportion is trumped by Discrimination. First of all, the attack must be against a legitimate target. Only after Discrimination is satisfied can one even ask about Proportion.

FWIW, I teach Just War Doctrine at Yorktown University.

Also FWIW, my father was stationed at an amphibious training base in California in 1945, and would have been manning a landing craft during the invasion. Yes, I'm glad the war was brought to an end without an invasion. However, I wish the bombs had been used in accordance with Just War Doctrine.

77 posted on 08/06/2013 9:41:11 AM PDT by JoeFromSidney ( New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As far as Japanese and German civilians dying, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany invaded Poland, over one million Japanese and German civilians were condemned to die by their own governments. Unless of course, the U.S. and the Allies had decided to submit to the Axis and surrender. As soon as the Allies decided to fight back, those Axis civilians were doomed to die in large numbers, atom bomb or no atom bomb.


78 posted on 08/06/2013 9:44:07 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As far as Japanese and German civilians dying, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany invaded Poland, over one million Japanese and German civilians were condemned to die by their own governments. Unless of course, the U.S. and the Allies had decided to submit to the Axis and surrender. As soon as the Allies decided to fight back, those Axis civilians were doomed to die in large numbers, atom bomb or no atom bomb.


79 posted on 08/06/2013 9:45:42 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
"China"

I remember attending some sort of August 6 observance in my hometown of La Crosse, Wisc. more than twenty years ago just to see what those things looked like. I heard speaker after speaker condemn the U.S. for dropping the bomb. They had one Japanese woman who said she'd never forgive the U.S. for dropping the bomb. As I was watching the ceremony, I wanted to shout out and ask the attendees if they were going to the observance mourning the millions of Chinese civilians slaughtered by the Japanese army. Of course, there was no observance for those people.

80 posted on 08/06/2013 9:51:45 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper

I think the day is coming when the only thing they will teach kids about WWII are:

The Soviet Union won the war on their own, with little help from us
Dresden
The Internment of Japanese Citizens
Hiroshima and Nagasaki,


81 posted on 08/06/2013 9:52:11 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Given the circumstances it was the most compassionate act possible for everyone involved. It prevented suffering and death on both sides on a scale that would have dwarfed the destruction the bombs caused.


82 posted on 08/06/2013 9:59:54 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" is more than an Army Ranger credo it's the character of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Thank you for the resources linked.

The moral question would be whether the killing of the civilians was directly intended or was it foreseen but not intended. The people who justify the bombing of Hiroshima would have to show that the killing of the civilian population was not meant as a means to an end.

In other words, what was the target?

If the target was the city of Hiroshima, together with its population, the act is condemned.

On the other hand, some have argued that the target was certain massive military assets in Hiroshima. In this case, the destruction of those assets would have been justifiable. They would say the collateral deaths were first of all not intended, and secondly, proportional to the aim of bringing the much larger mass killing of WWII to a quicker end.

83 posted on 08/06/2013 10:02:45 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I believe we should apologize for not having more and used them on russia.


84 posted on 08/06/2013 10:23:08 AM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
Joe, you've answered the question of #83

You're saying the killing of the civilians was deliberate, and part of the overall intent to shock the Japanese military / imperial leadership in a unique and unprecedented way.

That part about the submarine officer is interesting. Would the defenders of the bombing have said that the military targets they obliterated in Hiroshima were of significantly greater strategic military value than the submarine base?

The U.S., as I understand it, leafletted the city of Hiroshima (and a dozen or so other cities) saying that the inhabitants should evacuate. Was it ever even physically possible for them to evacuate? And ---this is speculation but --- if they had, would the U.S. still have targeted Hiroshima rather than some other possible target site?

In other words, was it precisely the presence of all those people which helped make Hiroshima a target of choice?

It's also been argued that, anticipating the invasion of the southern island of Kyushu, the Japanese prepared Operation Decision (Ketsu-Go) which envisaged the deployment of over 2 million troops along the coast to repel Allied landings. Do you think using the atomic bomb on these massed troops, causing say 2x the amount of (military)troop deaths on Kyushu, than the number of civilian deaths at Hiroshima, would have been justified?

To answer it myself: I think so.

85 posted on 08/06/2013 10:25:55 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The USSR and the Red Chinese threw more radiation over the four islands of Japan than did the detonation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Members of the 6091St Reconnaissance and the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance stationed at Yokota AFB, Japan, between 1957 and 1963 could tell you how much radiation was spread over all of Japan from the nuclear tests done by the Communists. These units flew the RB-57Es from Yokota over Russia and China and sampled the air to evaluate the detonations. These clouds were carried by the prevailing winds over Japan. There were weeks that US personnel and families were required to stay inside due to the atmospheric radiation in Japan.
86 posted on 08/06/2013 10:41:39 AM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
Rather than attacking the city, the sub base should have been attacked.

Do we know what the actual target was? We know where the bombs hit, but where were they 'aimed'.

I put quotes on aimed because our bombing accuracy at that point in time was extremely low.

87 posted on 08/06/2013 11:06:02 AM PDT by Half Vast Conspiracy (People in America are still tried in the courts rather than by left-wing protesters or by the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Question: How may would have died had the war continued?

Because the Japanese would be extremely aggressive, and interpolating from the way they defended any Islands we invaded, in defending their homeland it was estimated at the time that 1,000,000 American troops and that many more Japanese military and civilians would die during an invasion.

Not only that, we killed far more people destroyed much more property with our incendiary bombing of Japan.

88 posted on 08/06/2013 11:08:24 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What may not be widely known is that after the first bomb was dropped, and the Emperor's advisers were attempting to end the war, a coup was begun by a number of military field-grade officers.

A number of people were killed, as these finatics attempted to find and destroy the Imperial rescript (a recording of the Emperor's capitulation for radio broadcast to the Japanese people). This recording was hidden for several days by a couple of very brave servants during the coup and eventually, after the coup began to fall apart, was spirited into the radio station, and transmitted.

Only then could the plotters no longer maintain that they were acting on behalf of Hirohito, who they had claimed was being "betrayed by a cabal of cowards in the cabinet."

The story of the coup itself makes fascinating reading, but I just can't remember the name of the book, after all these years. I'll bet it could be found on the internet, though.

89 posted on 08/06/2013 11:12:13 AM PDT by pickrell (Old dog, new trick...sort of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

What is the name of the book, please?


90 posted on 08/06/2013 11:19:04 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
I have a couple more questions, if you don't mind.

Do you think there is some way to tell what a person intends by analyzing their actions and choices? Or can intent simply be a person's verbal description --- one of may possible descriptions --- of what he was doing, and why?

I actually tried to digest G.E.M. Anscomb's book "Intention" to get to the bottom of this, but it didn't help. I could not grasp what she was getting at. (I'm not, generally, deficient in reading comprehension, but I was definitely stupid in relation to Anscombe's book!) Could you recommend some relatively straightforward reading on this?

91 posted on 08/06/2013 11:33:42 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: pickrell

RE: What may not be widely known is that after the first bomb was dropped, and the Emperor’s advisers were attempting to end the war, a coup was begun by a number of military field-grade officers.

_____________________________

I think you are referring to the Kyujo Incident (Kuyjo Jiken). That was an attempted military coup d’etat in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night of 14 August 1945, just prior to announcement of Japan’s surrender to the Allies. The attempted coup was put into effect by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and by many from the Imperial Guard of Japan in order to stop the move to surrender.

The officers, in an attempt to block the decision to surrender to the Allies, killed Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division and attempted to counterfeit an order from Hirohito.

They attempted to place the Emperor under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army (Japan) and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they ultimately committed suicide in traditional Japanese form.

The following books give an account of this:

1) Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire Paperback by Richard B. Frank

2) Japan’s War: The Great Pacific Conflict, 1853-1952 Hardcover by Edwin Palmer Hoyt


92 posted on 08/06/2013 11:37:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: All
 photo dggs3o.jpg
Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
on FR coming by "Clicking Here"!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


93 posted on 08/06/2013 11:41:07 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

Superfortress: The Boeing B-29 & American Airpower in World War II

http://www.walmart.com/ip/5130100?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227000000000&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=21486607510&wl4=&wl5=pla&wl6=19880599990&veh=sem


94 posted on 08/06/2013 11:50:28 AM PDT by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Half Vast Conspiracy
Do we know what the actual target was? We know where the bombs hit, but where were they 'aimed'.

In the case of Hiroshima they were aimed at a steel mill. I don't recall for Nagasaki. In both cases, however, the city itself, rather than a primarily military installation, was the target.

95 posted on 08/06/2013 12:05:43 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney ( New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I have a couple more questions, if you don't mind.

This can get tricky. If I'm attacked by a criminal, I may intend to shoot the criminal, but if I'm a poor shot, I may inadvertently hit an innocent bystander. That wasn't my intention, but it was the outcome. In that case I'd hate to be judged by the outcome.

It gets even trickier when you aim at a legitimate target, knowing that there will be collateral damage among innocent bystanders. The objection raised is, "How can you say you didn't intend to kill those bystanders when you know it would happen?" The answer is, did the good effect of my attack (destroying a factory, blowing up a train, whatever) follow in any way from the deaths of the bystanders? If I could have achieved all of my purpose even had the bystanders been miraculously removed from the scene, then killing them was not part of my intention. However, if any part of my benefit derives from killing someone, such as by depriving war industries of workers, then that outcome has to be counted as part of my intention.

However, in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the fire-bombing of Tokyo and the obliteration bombing of Dresden, the intention was clear from the outset. The aiming points given the bombardiers were chosen such that bombs were to fall on civilian housing, non-military industries, etc. The stated intent was to wipe out the cities and their inhabitants.

Anscombe has a lot of good stuff, but basically she's a philospher, You have to be pretty deep into philosophy (I'm not) to understand much of what she says. I recommend The Just War Tradition by Corey and Charles; Law and War by Peter Maguire; and Just and Unjust Wars by Walzer. The latter is particularly interesting because Walzer is an atheist and derives Just War entirely from the Natural Law tradition, with not so much as a gesture to Aquinas or any of the other Christian scholars of Just War.

Hope that helps.

96 posted on 08/06/2013 12:23:55 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney ( New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Two comments.

Yes, I would say that using an atomic bomb on massed troops deployed to prevent an invasion would have been justified, even though there might be heavy collateral damage among innocent civilians. The guilt, if any, would have fallen on the Japanese government for not evacuating the civilians from what was going to be a battlefield.

In my book A Fighting Chance, I trace how the mid-1930s goal of precision bombing of strategic targets degenerated into city-busting by the mid-1940s. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply the outcome of that degeneration.

FWIW, I spent a good portion of my USAF career working on precision bombing systems, both radar and inertial. We were trying to get back to the 1930s goal, but it turned out to be a lot harder than anyone realized. today's laser-guided bombs and artillery shells are finally delivering what air power pioneers had hoped for nearly a century ago.

97 posted on 08/06/2013 12:30:44 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney ( New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90

I believe Operation TORCH was the code name of the Allied invasion of North Africa in Nov 1942.


98 posted on 08/06/2013 12:43:55 PM PDT by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
This is very interesting: your experiences, and yhour reflection on it, looks very valuable to me, and thanks as well for your reading recommendations. They give me something to work on.

Some statements from the major decision-makers suggest that their intention was not to destroy particular strategic military assets in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was to break Japan on the psychological level, through horror. And I think one can know this by looking at the weapons they chose (inherently, intentionally, indiscriminately destructive in theory and in practice) and seeing where they chose to use them. If they had used them on Kyushu, they might have killed 2 million Japanese troops instead of 200,000 Japanese civilians, but it would have been justifiable. But they chose to incinerate civilians instead, to maximize the psychological impact.

I further think that the frank consequentialism of the "target = city" bombings --- the underlying belief that innocent human lives can be targeted and directly intentionally killed, "if it works" --- helped build our abortion regime.

Our abortion culture did not come from the demands of oops-I'm-pregnant 20 year old Starbucks baristas. It came from the demand of a very highly motivated, very small Malthusian-eugenic elite who want a no-limits ethic and total control.

Anything -- they would say --- can be justified "if it works", if it achieves good consequences. That is their intention: to avoid the miseries of random human breeding, "overpopulation" and so forth, and achieve a controlled utopian society, where no one draws breath except the planned, the perfect and the privileged. They haven't achieved that yet, of course: but they certainly have good intentions by the ton.

99 posted on 08/06/2013 1:12:19 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney; Half Vast Conspiracy
In the case of Hiroshima they were aimed at a steel mill.

The designated aim point for Little Boy was a bridge where a river split in two. That was basically the center of the city and very easy to spot from the aircraft. The weather was near perfect and the bomb was drop on that aim point. The exact hypocenter was located a little southeast of the bridge.

100 posted on 08/06/2013 1:19:26 PM PDT by OldMissileer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson