BF2S Forums Should the US have dropped the bombs on Japan?

I think Japan deserves another nuking for the shit they pulled in WW2.  If it wasn't for Japans invested research in robots that we can have sex with, I'd say we should sink their fucking island.  Fuck Germany, too.  They love David Hasslehoff over there.  Let that sink in a minute.  David fucking Hasslehoff.  That's right, the dude from that stupid 80's show with the crime solving Firebird.  Now I'm pissed off.  A few rounds of carpet bombing might learn 'em.

A port.

The Japanese were already surrounded. The Japanese fleet was gone. The US was considering a land invasion. I hardly think a ship building port was that much of a threat.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-12-04 21:19:37)

AussieReaper wrote:

A port.

The Japanese were already surrounded. The Japanese fleet was gone. The US was considering a land invasion. I hardly think a ship building port was that much of a threat.

That built military ships. You must take into account Japanese culture at the time. the Japanese would have died for their living god, no matter the fact that they were surrounded. It took a lot of convincing via Soviet invasion and WMD's to finally get the emperor to surrender. I believe there was no other way.
Nagasaki had been bombed several times before. The civilian population knew of the threat.

"The "Fat Man" weapon, containing a core of ~6.4 kg (14.1 lbs.) of plutonium-239, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. Forty-three seconds later it exploded 469 meters (1,540 ft) above the ground exactly halfway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works) in the north."

Intent does matter. This WAS strategic, they could have hit an easierm less fortified, and denser populated area. There is no comparison between the intent at Nanking and the intent of the war ending bombs dropped on Japan.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1 - That is not a source.

2 - "moving plenty of soliders from Europe to the Pacific" lol. You speak as if this is a matter of numbers and a war of attrition is acceptable. There would have been an absurd amount of losses on both sides in the case of a conventional invasion, that much is fact.

There's been quite a lot of debate on the topic you are asking for a source on.  The reason why I mentioned source before is because it's kind of redundant - I have a hard time believing you have not heard this debate before, rather I'd like to see you dispute it.  It's not because I'm trying to be crotchity Pug per usual, but it's because the "source" argument in this case is well documented.  I mean this respectfully of course, as it would be nice to see this as a good debate.  This topic is common on this site but still interesting.

Dilbert wrote:

The Japanese were more than ready to surrender, it was taking time to grind through their internal political processes but it was going to happen.
The US was well aware of this.

The US was also well aware Japan is an island with few natural resources, and no Navy or Air Force left.
They could have been surrounded and isolated, there was no need for an invasion.

You can almost argue the first bomb was 'necessary', although not really.
There is no way you can argue the second bomb was, the Japanese were given no chance to surrender after the first one.

The bottom line is the US had two shiny new bombs to test, and they wanted to frighten the Russians back into their hole.
The US was incendiary bombing Japanese cities right from the Doolittle raids onwards, the plan was to annihilate Japan so the US could dominate the Pacific.

Here's a for instance:
The most of the Japanese wished to surrender for terms that were less than unconditional.  Due to size of the conflict, an unconditional surrender was a requirement for the Allies.  I can't remember the particular points of what this was, but I think Japan wanted to keep part of China (Korea at the time I think).  But even though the majority of Japanese were in this category, those in control were not capitulating.  In fact some of the major opposition was eliminated by those in command of the "surrender decision".  So yeah, they would have eventually surrendered, but an invasion was likely because the political processes most likely may have taken longer than an invasion.  NOW, I have heard the argument about the political winds of change, but the timing was such the political coup would take a long, long time.

As far as isolating the island.  A-bombs probably killed up to 250k.  An invasion would have been 6 million combatants, and 4 million civillians.  But a blockade would also include prolonged bombing.  Including knocking out and isolating 1/3 of Japan's population in the southern islands.  The bridges would have been blown.  Since the southern islands do not have the agricultural means to support 1/3 of the population because most of it was supplied by the mainland...1/3 of the population would be subject to famine within the first 6 months.  A-bombs = 250k.  Invasion 10 million.  Famine?  Well more than 10 million.  Based on the Japanese culture and the actions of those on previous islands - the US only captured 1 of every 10 Japanese citizen who were on the island at the time of the invasion.  Note that actual trained military on said islands was not 90%.  Most fought, and probably 30% committed suicide.  I'm basing this on a book I read over 10 years ago on the island hopping campaign.  In other words, the Japanese culturally did not surrender like the Allies or the Germans.  There was no guarantee Japan would surrender without losing 90% of the population.  NOW, isolating the island would have worked, but it's not a non-violent option as it appears, as the US would attack the infrastructure first - aka the link to food between the mainland and the southern islands.

Second bomb not necessary - well, the time was August 6th - first bomb.  August 9th - second bomb.  August 9th - Russian offensive into Manchuria, pretty much crushing them.  August 10-14th - Top Japanese staff ordered to plan a counterattack in Manchuria.  August 15 - VJ day.  August 15 - Failed Coup d'etat of the Japanese military to continue the war.  Like stated before, yes, they would have surrendered without bombs, but it was conditional...conditions that were not acceptable.  As far as a second bomb, many Japanese historians think the Russian involvement in the war was more of an issue than the a-bombs.  If you find one of these "the russians did it" books, let me know because I think that would be an interesting read.  Based on a failed coup...I don't know about the stability of the government as far as whether the hawks or doves would be in command, but for sure it was unknown.  NOW, I would agree that a second bomb would not have been necessary - I believe the Russians forced it in actuality.  That and the lack of a navy to defend itself.

Doolitle comment - I read the Russians wanted Japan somewhere, but didn't believe it.  But if this were the case, I do believe that was the rationale by the US leadership aka the only and prevalent reason to pop a nuke. 

Hey you know what's missing from the OP?  The third option - in actuality, I think the invasion would have never happened.  It really should be "how many nukes do you think it would take"?  The third bomb would have been there by the end of August.

As far "the US wanted to dominate the Pacific" - Sorry Dilbert...source.

We have had this one before.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=90683&p=1

A few details;

Total deaths in WW-2 were around 70 million. Fully 30 million of those were Chinese, mostly at the hands of Japan.  Another 30 million were Russians, mostly at the hands of Germany.  The Jewish Holocaust, in comparison, was 6 million dead.  America lost 400,000, and England lost 400,000. The Japanese were not innocent victims by any stretch.  They were exceptionally brutal in their treatment of Chinese civilians, Allied POWs, and civilian villages.

The Japanese had previously demonstrated their complete conviction towards fighting to the death.  Plenty of battles before we bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki, where the Japanese fought quite literally to the "last man", refused to surrender under the worst odds, or used Kamikazi tactics.

It was not the losses they suffered in Hiroshima & Nagasaki that convinced them to surrender.
It was the bluff that we had an unlimited supply of such bombs, and had the capacity to wipe out every single Japanese on the planet at will.
They seemed willing to fight an "honorable" war of attrition, man-to-man, until one of us ran out of men to send.
We had to convince them that, no, there was not going to be an honorable Samurai death - it was going to be purely them dying for a lost cause, and us safely striking from the air.

On the total scale of WW-2, a loss of 200,000 people to finally end that war, is nothing compared to the other 70 million that died.
200,000 Japanese lost their lives, to finally end a war where they'd needlessly slaughtered over 30,000,000 Chinese.

And, a historical footnote;
The two most vicious aggressor nations of WW-2, Japan and Germany, are now a couple of the most war-phobic, peaceful, economically productive manufacturing countries in the world.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-12-04 22:13:09)

we nuke them, now they make us playstations.

/win

Iran?

^he's right.  It was a race -us or them.  We won.  America, fuck yeah.

Indeed it does. Like the irony of Hitlers perfect race... nearly everything he wasn't.

Look into operation paperclip if you haven't already.

rdx-fx wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Indeed it does. Like the irony of Hitlers perfect race... nearly everything he wasn't.

Some of my family came over from Germany to the USA during WW-2.

That side is generally tall, athletic, blond haired, blue eyed, academically inclined to engineering/science, and tends to spend a few years in the military. 

Poster children for Hitler's Aryan race.

...except for the little detail of a last name that marks some of us as Kohanim, "King Priest of Jews"

My grandmother was in the Hitler Youth

I am tall, athletic, brown haired, hazel eyed and I'm going for my degree in electrical engineering Close enough?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-04 23:18:20)

Kmarion wrote:

I spent time in Germany (playing soccer). Back then I was tall, athletic, blue eyed, and blond. I fit in well. I'm of french decent though . .. and my hair has turned darker now.

The French are Germanic anyway.

Yeah I knew somebody would catch onto that Krazed.

I'm so sick of people justifying them so I'm sure you get the idea.