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

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … /Bombs.png
How simple does it need to be for you guys?

Of course they had alternative plans to defend themselves, who wouldn't?

How simple?

A clear indication they wanted to surrender was rejecting the peace terms on July 29th at Potsdam

I wonder why Japan rejected peace, when the memo says two months earlier they were begging for a peace treaty?

Dilbert.....  Your using, as your base, a doc done a year after the war ended. It will have info that was not known out side the Supreme Counsel at the time of those events.
At the same time as the Counsel was talking among themselves they were working on this.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

Operation Ketsu-go

FEOS wrote:

People here love to use the benefit of crystal-clear hindsight to show what people "should've known" while completely ignoring the fact that there's no way for the decision-makers to have had that information at the time they made their decisions. It's as if time has no meaning or something.

Oh So True

Dilbert_X wrote:

Much of the information was clearly available at the time.
History has been re-written to suit the politicians version of events and obscure the true situation.
Now everyone believes the US had no choice but to drop the bombs which is simply untrue.

Why didn't we hold back a few months and just nuke Berlin I wonder? Would have saved a good number of allied lives.

One bomb on Hiroshima, one on Berlin. Think about it.

The Russians went into Berlin, and if Germany didn't surrender on time they would've nuked Berlin.

Dilbert do you not understand that the Japanese WOULD NEVER SURRENDER without the emperor? Just go look at the civilian suicides in Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

RAIMIUS wrote:

We didn't wait to nuke Berlin because we wanted to win ASAP, and the bomb was FAR from a sure thing.
One of the reasons the US didn't seriously consider a demonstration bombing was fear of a "fizzle."  Imagine that one...US: "Look at our new SUPERWEAPON!"  ..(1 ton explosion)..  Japanese: "Huh?"

After Hiroshima, some Japanese army generals were trying to deny it was an A-bomb.  Others were claiming it was likely the only one the US had.  After Nagasaki, some army leaders tried to stage a coup, so the emperor couldn't surrender!

Was the US completely justified?  I don't think so.  We did not follow the general principles of Jus in Bello when we picked the center of cities as the targets...but that wasn't something unique to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Both sides targeted civilian centers throughout the war.

That had already been wrung out via the logic of firebombing entire cities in both theaters (by both sides), anyway.

Additionally, if you look at the Japanese tactic of "cottage industry" for wartime production, it essentially made every neighborhood a valid military target...even under the revised LOAC after WW2.

Dilbert_X wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

We didn't wait to nuke Berlin because we wanted to win ASAP, and the bomb was FAR from a sure thing.
One of the reasons the US didn't seriously consider a demonstration bombing was fear of a "fizzle."  Imagine that one...US: "Look at our new SUPERWEAPON!"  ..(1 ton explosion)..  Japanese: "Huh?"

Russia was weak, the European invasion was certain to cost many lives.
The bomb was on its way. If Overlord had been delayed and Berlin nuked, Russia would have been left in a much weaker position and not halfway across Europe.

But wasn't a Russia that had just been through an Eastern Front meat grinder even weaker?

Yes, we should have dropped the bombs -- not to win but to scare the shit out of the Russians.

It worked very well at that, and it happened to a very deserving target.

Just my two cents, but the Japanese were prepared for all out war against us. They had thousands of miniature kamikaze submarines built with the intent of destroying our landing force. The nukes were necessary. They targets could have been picked better (the capital perhaps?), but I digress.

Spark wrote:

Tokyo had already been burned to the ground - literally. At least as many people - probably more - died as a result of the firebombings compared to the nukes.

afaik the death toll from the firebombing was way higher

Someone said that japan had no air force/navy left.

That's about true apart from the kamikaze planes AND boats. In total they had over 10k of those items, all capable of sinking a ship. Did the US had that many ships?

As for army, japan had over 3 million soldiers and about 20+ millions militia, all capable of killing.

An invasion would be very costly indeed.

Another thing, you're all winded up of the atomic bombs that where used, but before that, a lot of cities where bombed to the ground already using "normal" bombs and fire stuff.

If, and just If US didn't used the A bombs, normal bombing would've continued until the surrender. Trowing the A-bomb was just a cheaper way to do it. (you only needed one plane and one bomb)


As for victims, A bomb made more victims per square mile
Normal bombing made more victims in total.


The thing about the Russians could be true also. Us was only showing its might at the cost of the Japanese.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Trowing the A-bomb was just a cheaper way to do it. (you only needed one plane and one bomb)

Except that one bomb cost billions to develop.

There was no need to do anything, continue conventional bombing, drop A-bombs, they knew that at the time and afterwards.

Which would've resulted in even more deaths than the two nukes did...which they also knew at the time and afterwards.

Which everyone else has known for years...except for you, apparently.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Which would've resulted in even more deaths than the two nukes did

Except not, given Japan was ready to surrender already.

Except not. Japan had been given the opportunit(ies) to surrender. They said no. You don't stop putting pressure on the enemy because you think they've been beaten. You continue hitting them until they are utterly destroyed or until they surrender.

Neither case had happened, so the attacks would've continued until Japan surrendered.

That's the part you don't get.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-12-18 04:32:44)