Posted on 08/02/2014 8:08:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yes, it is.
I’m with you. My Dad survived D-Day and the long, bloody slog across Europe to the Rhine. He said the happiest day of his life up to that point was hearing the bomb was dropped, because he knew he would not have to fight in another bloody invasion. He rarely talked about his experiences in the war but this was one thing he would talk about.
The atomic bomb showed the fanatics who still had a functioning brain cell that we didn’t have to face their insanity up close any longer;we could utterly destroy them with no casualties on our side.
Their last hope was to discourage an invasion with the knowledge that every Japanese was going to kill at least one American soldier.
The A-bomb ended that hope.
i fear it may need to be used again against another cult of suicidal death-worshipping fanatics who follow a false prophet.
One potential flaw in much of the historical analysis of this subject is that it's predicated on the assumption that there were only two options available to the U.S. government at the time: (1) drop atomic bombs on major Japanese cities (with certain risk to Japanese civilians); or (2) invade Japan (with certain risk to U.S. soldiers).
I have yet to see any compelling case made that the U.S. ever had to invade Japan in 1945 -- or any time after that -- in order to win World War II.
What myth?
Would the Japs or the Krauts have hesitated to use the bomb on us if they had gotten it first?
Obviously not.
Really? You really see no compelling evidence that the U.S. would have had to invade Japan to end World War II, if not for dropping the atomic bombs?
Please elaborate. I’m not sure I follow your reasoning, but would like to consider your point of view. I see what you are saying about assumptions of two options available to end the war, but just don’t see offhand what other options were available to us at the time. Please explain.
If morality and military ethics are the governing factor in this kind of determination, then the Roosevelt administration, and a sizeable portion of the U.S. military leadership, should have been tried and hanged for treason on the basis of their own decisions about the execution of the war in the Pacific. By your own standard, the strategy of p!ssing away the lives of thousands of Marines in landings on small islands all over the South Pacific --- when this was far from the most effective way of seizing those islands -- was tantamount to mass murder.
I suppose we could have starved the Japanese to death but that would have taken a long time and been incredibly cruel.
Do a bit of research into how far along Germany AND Japan were in developing their own atomic weapons. Rocketry technology was also a factor, since airplanes would not be needed to deliver atomic weaponry. Evidently, your perspective lacks sufficient data to make the assertions you’ve made.
Perhaps we could have set up a blockade around Japan, but starving them to death would have been cruel, you are right.
I hope Alberta’s Child will elaborate on how we could have ended the war without the A-bomb and without a conventional invasion of Japan.
The same delay midset will be what allows Iran, a totally fasnatical society, to develop nuclear weapons and have the delivery system to use them, which they will not hesitate to do when they feel they can obliterate Israel and maim Americans. To deny the reality of the demonic insanity we are witnessing from Islam fits right in with the mindset of those denying the validity of using the two weapons Fatman and Little Boy.
Then I suggest you go back and read the history of the War, starting with the invasion of Manchuria. Study how the Japanese acted when we fought them on Guadalcanal, or any of the other islands as the Pacific Fleet advanced on Japan. Out of a garrison estimated at 5000 troops on one of those islands, 2 surrendered. The rest either fought to the death or committed suicide. If you think they would have fought with less ferocity on their own soil, you are sadly mistaken. It would have taken an invasion of Japan to force them to surrender had it not been for the atomic bomb. Indeed, we might still be fighting door-to-door had it not been so.
Because your question is framed in the counterfactual condition, one cannot answer it in certain. However, given their previous behavior, there is no reason to think they would have gone quietly into the night.
RIP Major Theodore Van Kirk
A true American Hero
Japanese war production was spread throughout small workshops in their cities. Precision bombing of industrial targets was tried but found ineffective.
In March 1945 the USAAF began conventional fire bombing. The most destructive air raid of the war was the March 9 firebomb attack on Tokyo killing over 80,000. Atomic bomb casualty numbers include deaths occurring up to four months after the attack but for immediate lethality they were equalled by the firebombing campaign.
The left wanted this nation to be spent after the war. Chaos presents opportunities to seize power.
I am not opposed to dropping nukes into several ME “cities” to end the conflict at once. Of course, new conflicts will again arise, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of working condition nukes. Why waste tax payer money in researching, building, and maintaining them, when they are not used from time to time?
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.