"Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications"

"Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

rook749 -> "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/16/2014 10:19:53 PM)
This might interest some people. http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/1096.asp

wdolson -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/16/2014 11:11:42 PM)
I have read the DoD are still issuing purple hearts minted for the invasion of Japan that weren't used. My father always thought dropping the nukes on Japan was a good idea. He thought it probably saved his life. He felt his number would be coming up soon if the war went on much longer. Bill

JohnDillworth -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/16/2014 11:34:46 PM)
I read his book "Hell to Pay" and highly recommend it to the community. It was a a sober analysis of what lay ahead and likely Allied tactics. Really good book

dr.hal -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 1:00:05 AM)
This may seem very callous especially if you are Japanese, but by dropping the nukes in '45 on Japan we entered the "nuclear age" in its infancy and on the "cheap" (relatively speaking)! If we had waited until the Korean war or later to employ the first actual use of these weapons, by that time they were so much more destructive that their initial use could have been catastrophic to say the least (without us really understanding just what would result from that use). If we hadn't the experience as a result of their use in the two Japanese cities we might have gone to war in something like the Cuban missile crisis period where we had MEGA-ton weapons.... and LOTS of them. Again please understand, I don't mean to be derogatory to Japan and the suffering it caused, but the truth is that by doing so, we helped avoid what Bill alludes to, the horrendous casualties of the invasion, but also a potential first use of those weapons when they could have been a planet ending event.

btd64 -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 2:56:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal This may seem very callous especially if you are Japanese, but by dropping the nukes in '45 on Japan we entered the "nuclear age" in its infancy and on the "cheap" (relatively speaking)! If we had waited until the Korean war or later to employ the first actual use of these weapons, by that time they were so much more destructive that their initial use could have been catastrophic to say the least (without us really understanding just what would result from that use). If we hadn't the experience as a result of their use in the two Japanese cities we might have gone to war in something like the Cuban missile crisis period where we had MEGA-ton weapons.... and LOTS of them. Again please understand, I don't mean to be derogatory to Japan and the suffering it caused, but the truth is that by doing so, we helped avoid what Bill alludes to, the horrendous casualties of the invasion, but also a potential first use of those weapons when they could have been a planet ending event. Your right....GP

geofflambert -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 3:45:48 AM)
The A-bombs seem like a natural extension of the fire bombing we were already doing. The difference between A-bombs and H-bombs seems far greater than that. edit: sorry for saying "we". It is appropriate for me but I think we're trying to have an objective discussion here. I have to be able to see other sides or there is no point to discuss.

wegman58 -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 11:22:32 AM)
I have always thought that the use of A-Bombs in Japan, in addition to saving at least a million Japanese lives, saved tens of millions in Europe. Uncle Joe might have made a try at Western Europe if not for the nuclear concern.

wdolson -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 11:40:35 AM)
Collectively we also learned just how horrendous the aftermath of these weapons are. The long term radiation effects taught the world to think twice about using these weapons and thankfully we have avoided their use up to this point. At the time they were used, radiation was fairly well known by scientists in nuclear physics and a few engineers, but it was an alien concept to those who weren't specialists in that area. It was sort of like the concept of germs to someone on the street in the 1880s. To most people in the chain of command who knew about the bombs before they were used, these were just really big bombs like super block busters. Any talk of the long term effects was just voodoo. Bill

Mundy -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 11:56:13 AM)
Heck, just the fuel cores could cause problems. Demon Core Ed-

Amoral -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 2:15:04 PM)
Invasion and the A-Bombs were not the only ways to end the war. A rational decision would have been a negotiated peace. If the allies had told Japan that we would let them buy oil and resources on the world market, that the US would protect them against the USSR, and that the allies would spend enormous sums helping them rebuild we could have had peace without either.

Chickenboy -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 3:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal This may seem very callous especially if you are Japanese, but by dropping the nukes in '45 on Japan we entered the "nuclear age" in its infancy and on the "cheap" (relatively speaking)! If we had waited until the Korean war or later to employ the first actual use of these weapons, by that time they were so much more destructive that their initial use could have been catastrophic to say the least (without us really understanding just what would result from that use). If we hadn't the experience as a result of their use in the two Japanese cities we might have gone to war in something like the Cuban missile crisis period where we had MEGA-ton weapons.... and LOTS of them. Again please understand, I don't mean to be derogatory to Japan and the suffering it caused, but the truth is that by doing so, we helped avoid what Bill alludes to, the horrendous casualties of the invasion, but also a potential first use of those weapons when they could have been a planet ending event. Good points.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 3:42:51 PM)
Even Japan's surrender, after the 2nd bomb/ USSR entry to the war, was a 50-50 chance; Hirohito was hesitant, and the Ky�j� Incident; the Aug 14�15 coup attempt, could had ended in success. Question: is there any good book (in English) that goes into detail regarding the last days?

Lecivius -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 3:47:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amoral Invasion and the A-Bombs were not the only ways to end the war. A rational decision would have been a negotiated peace. If the allies had told Japan that we would let them buy oil and resources on the world market, that the US would protect them against the USSR, and that the allies would spend enormous sums helping them rebuild we could have had peace without either. I believe you & I will have to disagree on this. This line of thinking, from a historical point, is one of the largest reasons for so much unrest today. I don't want to make this political in any way, and I deleted a LOT of what I had typed. But this is just wrong on a lot of levels IMHO. I would be happy to discuss politely in a private forum

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 3:52:00 PM)
The military leaders of Japan in 1945 were not the kind of partner you will like to negotiate anything other than surrender. It is crystal clear now, as we can read their reactions to initiatives like the Postdam declaration.. which they took it as a sign of weakness

pontiouspilot -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 4:30:27 PM)
My take on Japan's situation in August of 1945 was that all that was required was continued conventional bombing and naval blockade to cause complete collapse of civil society and widespread famine. Invasion was frankly unnecessary as was dropping the "A" bomb. The horrible irony is that dropping the bomb probably saved more Japanese lives than such a blockade would have destroyed.

HansBolter -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 5:12:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: Amoral Invasion and the A-Bombs were not the only ways to end the war. A rational decision would have been a negotiated peace. If the allies had told Japan that we would let them buy oil and resources on the world market, that the US would protect them against the USSR, and that the allies would spend enormous sums helping them rebuild we could have had peace without either. I believe you & I will have to disagree on this. This line of thinking, from a historical point, is one of the largest reasons for so much unrest today. I don't want to make this political in any way, and I deleted a LOT of what I had typed. But this is just wrong on a lot of levels IMHO. I would be happy to discuss politely in a private forum +1

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 6:14:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot My take on Japan's situation in August of 1945 was that all that was required was continued conventional bombing and naval blockade to cause complete collapse of civil society and widespread famine. Invasion was frankly unnecessary as was dropping the "A" bomb. The horrible irony is that dropping the bomb probably saved more Japanese lives than such a blockade would have destroyed. Only if this goes for a long time.. but then you have to realize that the conventional fire bombings + starvation would cause more casualties than the A-bomb

KenchiSulla -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 7:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury quote: ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot My take on Japan's situation in August of 1945 was that all that was required was continued conventional bombing and naval blockade to cause complete collapse of civil society and widespread famine. Invasion was frankly unnecessary as was dropping the "A" bomb. The horrible irony is that dropping the bomb probably saved more Japanese lives than such a blockade would have destroyed. Only if this goes for a long time.. but then you have to realize that the conventional fire bombings + starvation would cause more casualties than the A-bomb [image]local://upfiles/30342/923E5EF2906A4A99B02CC8370B81D084.jpg[/image]

btd64 -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 7:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amoral the US would protect them against the USSR Patton would of loved that.[:D]....GP

warspite1 -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 8:53:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: Amoral Invasion and the A-Bombs were not the only ways to end the war. A rational decision would have been a negotiated peace. If the allies had told Japan that we would let them buy oil and resources on the world market, that the US would protect them against the USSR, and that the allies would spend enormous sums helping them rebuild we could have had peace without either. I believe you & I will have to disagree on this. This line of thinking, from a historical point, is one of the largest reasons for so much unrest today. I don't want to make this political in any way, and I deleted a LOT of what I had typed. But this is just wrong on a lot of levels IMHO. I would be happy to discuss politely in a private forum +1 warspite1 +2

wdolson -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 10:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amoral Invasion and the A-Bombs were not the only ways to end the war. A rational decision would have been a negotiated peace. If the allies had told Japan that we would let them buy oil and resources on the world market, that the US would protect them against the USSR, and that the allies would spend enormous sums helping them rebuild we could have had peace without either. quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius I believe you & I will have to disagree on this. This line of thinking, from a historical point, is one of the largest reasons for so much unrest today. I don't want to make this political in any way, and I deleted a LOT of what I had typed. But this is just wrong on a lot of levels IMHO. I would be happy to discuss politely in a private forum Thanks for not going overly political. I just deleted several answers too... Let's just say a negotiated peace was a pretty low probability option from both sides at that point. Bill

wdolson -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/17/2014 10:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury Even Japan's surrender, after the 2nd bomb/ USSR entry to the war, was a 50-50 chance; Hirohito was hesitant, and the Ky�j� Incident; the Aug 14�15 coup attempt, could had ended in success. Question: is there any good book (in English) that goes into detail regarding the last days? I don't know if the book is any good, but Richard Frank has written a book entitled Downfall about the end of the war with Japan. I haven't read that book, but I read his book about the Guadalcanal campaign and it was exhaustive in its detail. Amazon has it used from $2.28 (plus shipping). I saw something in the History Book Club about a book that covered the last days within Japan, but I can't even begin to remember the title. I just remember reading the description of the book. Bill

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/18/2014 12:01:49 AM)
There is also this movie I highly recommend http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113309/ it's called Pearl Harb...cough cough... noooo [X(][X(][:-] just kidding, it is called Hiroshima, a TV movie from the 90s about the last days of Japan (showing both sides). I still prefer books thanks

pontiouspilot -> RE: "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" (9/18/2014 2:40:02 AM)
Jorge...yes I think that was my point. I'm not sure that the blockade would have to go on more than a year. They were in very rough shape.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125