The Atomic Bomb: It Was Always Right

Townhall.com ^ | August 2, 2014 | Larry Provost

[sagar]

“My basic approach on this subject is that there is no legal or moral justification for any military action whose sole purpose is the deliberate (or indiscriminate) destruction of civilians. You can go back through thousands of years of Judaeo-Christian moral principles and find that this has been the case since antiquity.”

Like when God killed non-Israelite first borns? I am guessing you don’t count that as neither civilian casualty nor Judaeo-Christian history.

[jttpwalsh]

My Uncle married a Japanese woman. Her brother was one of the best people I have ever known. Their father didn’t make it back to Tokyo until the end of 1946, he was a POW in Russian controlled territory (N.Korea, I think). As such, it was the son’s job, as the oldest boy (11 years old), to bring food home, to the starving family. He learned very quickly to find a military encampment, bring a pot, do menial chores (shoe shines, etc.), and then return home with leftover food. I remember him saying “One thing was for sure, in those uncertain times; G.I.s are gonna be fed, three times a day”.

[SpeakerToAnimals]

Using the atomic bomb was necessary to give the Japanese an honorable way to quit. Something none of these annual stories mention is the fire bombing of Japan by the B-29. On March 6 1945 338 B-29 bombers burned 25 square miles of Tokyo.

Over 100,000 people burned alive. Pictures of Tokyo on March 6 look just like pictures of Hiroshima on August 8.

Only 3% of the bomb damage to Japan was caused by Fat Man and Little Boy. Martin Caiden's book A Torch to the Enemy is a must read for any WWII historian.

[rimtop56]

Exactly right. The bombing of the first city didn’t change the Japanese minds, so demonstrating the bomb’s power on an empty atoll somewhere would have moved them even less.

[SpeakerToAnimals]

We both remember something others forget or gloss over - The very effective firebombing of over a hundred cities. See #43

[fungoking]

In college I worked on the paint crew with an older gentleman who fought in the Pacific and was training for the invasion when japan surrendered. He wasn’t religious but said he said a prayer every year at Thanksgiving thanking God for the atomic bomb. Not just because he and all his buddies knew they’d be killed in the invasion, he was thankful he was spared having to kill the women and children they knew would be sent out against them.

[PieterCasparzen]

Air superiority, then air supremecy, then naval supremecy, then land war.

At that point the land forces can be supported by naval and air forces unfettered by any opposition.

Military forces and targets are all that should be attacked, as there is nothing to gain militarily by indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

All of this is our present day doctrine.

[Renegade]

Made in America!Tested in Japan.Thank God it worked. My dad was training for the invasion of Japan. He might have been killed which would negate my existance, my two sons existance, and my two grandsons existance.War is Hell!Guess God was on our side!

[DFG]

Did anyone ask this “professor” about the allied bombing raids on Berlin, Cologne, and Dresden?

[jaydubya2]

A demonstration was considered, but decided against:

"It was evident that everyone would suspect trickery. If a bomb were exploded in Japan with previous notice, the Japanese air power was still adequate to give serious interference. An atomic bomb was an intricate device, still in the developmental stage. Its operation would be far from routine. If during the final adjustments of the bomb the Japanese defenders should attack, a faulty move might easily result in some kind of failure. Such an end to an advertised demonstration of power would be much worse that if the attempt had not been made. It was now evident that when the time came for the bombs to be used we should have only one of them available, followed afterwards by others at all-too-long intervals. We could not afford the chance that one of them might be a dud. If the test were made on some neutral territory, it was hard to believe that Japan's determined and fanatical military men would be impressed. If such an open test were made first and failed to bring surrender, the chance would be gone to give the shock of surprise that proved so effective. On the contrary, it would make the Japanese ready to interfere with an atomic attack if they could. Though the possibility of a demonstration that would not destroy human lives was attractive, no one could suggest a way in which it could be made so convincing that it would be likely to stop the war,"

So, the demonstration was at Hiroshima.

[xone]

All of this is our present day doctrine.

In a time where our stand-off weapons possess the accuracy and precision required to do the job. The 'indiscriminate' attacks on civilians was a result of civilians co-locating with military targets within the CEP of the weapons available at the time. Mass bomber raids were used because cities were the only thing that could be reliably hit. The weapons required a large target area to have effects.

[Pelham]

Paul Fussell’s essay ought to be required reading for those who quickly dismiss the use of the atomic bomb.

American casualties alone were running at 7,000 a week. Japanese resistance was becoming stiffer as the U.S. approached the home islands. The battle for Okinawa was especially fierce even when the defenders were cut off and that greatly worried American war planners. Civilians were being prepared to wage war to defend the home islands. Projected American casualties for the invasion of Japan were estimated to be as high as one million and Japanese casualties would be much higher.

My own father was one of those American soldiers who had fought the war in Europe and was being readied to be sent to the Pacific. I can assure you that he was not looking forward to it and he was greatly relieved to see Japan surrender.

https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS1300MET/v12/undervisningsmateriale/Fussel%20-%20thank%20god%20for%20the%20atom%20bomb.pdf

[jttpwalsh]

The bombing of the first city didn’t change the Japanese minds...

---

I fully agree.

At that time, “The Bomb” was new technology, there were only a few, available, and if such a demonstration turned out to be a dud, it would have set the war effort back, immensely.

Both sides of my family would likely not be here, today, if Japan had been invaded. Thank you.

[bandleader]

I was privileged to meet”Dutch”at a West Springfield,MASS Gun Show.He sigen a copy of the book:”The 509th Remembered”for me.For those of you who aren’t aware of”The 509th”,it was a “Specially Trained/Bombardment Group”in WWII.They were trained to deliver the Atomic Bombs.He was a humble(almost self-effacing)man.While he decried The Atom Bomb,he insisted that if there was to be a weapon like this,it’s a Damned Good Thing We(The United Sates of America)were the Only ones to have it!!!GOD Bless you”Dutch”!ThankYou for Your Service!!!

[TigersEye]

An excellent article. In light of the circumstances dropping the bombs was the most compassionate thing to do for all involved.

[JohnBovenmyer]

If a similar debate ever arises I offer a practical solution. Ask everybody in the country the question. Draft those who give the anti-Truman answer, using the age/gender limits the Japanese historically followed in their home island defense preparations. Use them as your invasion force. If/when they fail you may try the Truman option. The eventual winners will be better for the process.

[DownInFlames]

Mass murder is never right. Just BC we were in the winning side is not an excuse for not holding war crimes.

[ozdragon]

a partial answer to your question:
It was expected that the landings on the Japanese home islands would use the entire Marine Corp (300,000 men) on the first day. The following day a similar number of US Army was expected to land. Expectation was 50,000 American casualties on the first day.

[Alberta's Child]

There's a legitimate question about a third alternative to the two I presented previously, but looking back nearly 70 years later there's no way to answer hypothetical question like that accurately. On the one hand folks will insist that the Japanese -- soldier and civilian alike -- would have fought to the death of every last one of them. But on the other hand, it would have been "incredibly cruel" to starve them to death over their own refusal to surrender? I'm not sure that logically follows.

But then that would have been their responsibility, not ours -- right?

[PieterCasparzen]

In a time where our stand-off weapons possess the accuracy and precision required to do the job. The 'indiscriminate' attacks on civilians was a result of civilians co-locating with military targets within the CEP of the weapons available at the time. Mass bomber raids were used because cities were the only thing that could be reliably hit. The weapons required a large target area to have effects.

If planes can attack cities, they can attack anti-aircraft positions. They also can attack military air installations.

Flying over draws up enemy aircraft to resist, which was done even in WWII.

Contrary to popular belief, it actually was and is possible to hit military aircraft installations. It was actually done in WWII, runways were destroyed and aircraft were destroyed on the ground, as well as supply and maintenance at the airfields.

"Trouble was", if you do that "too much", the enemy's air force is completely put out of service, and the war ends very quickly, as ground forces without air defenses are easily destroyed by ground forces with overwhelming supporting air power.