RE: Japan=Nukes? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 11:00:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: myros
…Would 2 bombs dropped in mostly unihabited spots not have been just as an effective warning? Guess we'll never know.

Myros
Considering most of the Japanese leadership shrugged off the loss of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima… I think that answer is known.



Grouchy -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 11:49:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: general billy

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??


They didn't know excactly what it was going to do and how effective it would be (That'swhy they didn't choose Tokyo, it was already bombed, much worse then Nagasaki and Hiroshima btw). Secondly since it was the first time it would be used, there was always the possibility that the bomb wouldn't work.
Besides that, it was too late to use it against Japan. Japan was already looking for terms of surrender. Some are saying Truman needed the bomb's to warn the USSR. So they didn't warn Japan.



swatter555 -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 12:35:37 PM)

I know there were factions looking for some sort of peace. I believe they tried to negiotiate through the USSR, but the Russians were interested in a land grab in Manchuria.

In the end, I believe unconditional surrender without the atomic bombs was unlikely. I also dont buy that the US dropped the bomb to warn the Russians. Maybe it was considered a positive side-effect, but not the reason for dropping the bomb.



myros -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 12:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Anyone who's IQ has three digits can figure it out. If losing the Marianas, Iwo Jima,
and Okinawa; and total control of the skies over their own homeland hadn't been
enough to convince the Japanese war leaders that it was time to quit..., why do fools
think ...


Nice. Guess those 3 digit IQs dont help much with having friendly discussions. Maybe another way to look at it is - only a fool would state as absolute fact that which is nothing more than opinion? ;)

I recently saw a history program where the opinion was put forward that Japan had already set in motion the steps to surrender before the bombs were even dropped. It was an interesting show, how accurate the information was I have no idea, Im no expert ..which is why I like to keep an open mind about things, especialy history. I wasnt there, the person putting forth any particular theory wasnt there. The bombs were dropped, Japan surrendered ...those are facts we can all agree on. The rest I can speculate on because its interesting to do so, I like to consider ideas and opinions that are opposed and I can form my own opinions without degrading others whose opinions differ ..if that makes me a "fool" ... guess I can live with that ;)

Myros



andytimtim -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/19/2004 5:31:07 PM)

another program on the history channel said that the japanease were NOT! going to surrender that is until the russians decleared war on them, the guy said they'd rather have the americans in tokyo than the russians!

im not saying that was the actual reason why they gave up, but surely one of the reasons!



aspqrz02 -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/20/2004 6:13:39 AM)

NAh. There was a long article in USNI "Proceedings" about the myth of the million man casualty figure - and its just that, a myth. [:-]

The operational HQs involved planned on around 50k casualties (not dead, but dead and wounded) to, IIRC, D+30. THis was rounded by staffers to "100k" and somehow became 100k *dead* along the way. More rounding by several more layers of staffers and the figure became the mythical 250k/500k/1meg "dead".

As someone else pointed out, the US suffered 250k dead for the whole war, Pacific and European theaters combined.

Note that the 50k figures was based on averages of the island campaigns like Okinawa etc.

Dunno about the estimates of the Japanese losses offhand.



Caltone -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/20/2004 6:41:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grouchy

quote:

ORIGINAL: general billy

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??


They didn't know excactly what it was going to do and how effective it would be (That'swhy they didn't choose Tokyo, it was already bombed, much worse then Nagasaki and Hiroshima btw). Secondly since it was the first time it would be used, there was always the possibility that the bomb wouldn't work.
Besides that, it was too late to use it against Japan. Japan was already looking for terms of surrender. Some are saying Truman needed the bomb's to warn the USSR. So they didn't warn Japan.



Hmm, seems everyone didn't get the idea;

Japanese Holdouts

Additionally there seems to be some evidence that members of the general staff were not going to cave. I believe they staged a brief coup near the end and attempted to grab the Emperor's recording before it could be played. Some more on this here:

Final Days



CynicAl -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/20/2004 6:56:56 AM)

"I recently saw a history program where the opinion was put forward that Japan had already set in motion the steps to surrender before the bombs were even dropped... how accurate the information was I have no idea..."

Another poster previously mentioned Richard Frank's excellent Downfall. That book contains an excellent discussion of exactly this issue, spanning two full chapters and a large part of a third, based on surviving Japanese wartime documents and recently declassified communications intercepts from US archives. I believe it is fair to say that Downfall is the authoritative treatment of the subject to date, and I recommend it highly. In short: the various Japanese "peace offers" advanced through European neutrals were insubstantial and contained no concrete proposals for terms of a cease-fire, much less surrender; nor were they given the full backing of the Japanese government in Tokyo. The US government, being privy to the message traffic between Tokyo and the Japanese embassies, concluded that the Japanese were not serious about surrendering - as indeed they were not.



Rainerle -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 4:43:50 PM)

Hi,
just a curios question: Were the american nukes equipped with a self-destruct in case the bombs would fail to work ?



andytimtim -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 5:09:53 PM)

i think the answer would be...yes


would you want your enemy to own your own WMD?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 5:33:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grouchy

They didn't know excactly what it was going to do and how effective it would be (That'swhy they didn't choose Tokyo, it was already bombed, much worse then Nagasaki and Hiroshima btw). Secondly since it was the first time it would be used, there was always the possibility that the bomb wouldn't work.
Besides that, it was too late to use it against Japan. Japan was already looking for terms of surrender. Some are saying Truman needed the bomb's to warn the USSR. So they didn't warn Japan.


Yes, they did warn them. Truman himself gave the speech stating that "if the Japanese
did not accept the Allied terms, they were going to recieve such a rain of ruin from the
air as had never before been seen.." A fairly accurate description of what fell on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki



Arnir -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 8:25:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
just a curios question: Were the american nukes equipped with a self-destruct in case the bombs would fail to work ?


I have not heard or read about any self-destruct devices on the atomic bombs. Even today there aren't any on the ICBM's. Once they are launched you can't stop them and you can't even blow them up short of shooting them down.

Regarding warning Japan: "A rain of ruin from the sky" could easily be the incendiary bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, etc. Almost everyone promises complete destruction, this was the first time in history that it was actually true with one weapon. I doubt if the Japanese really understood the warning. None of that impacts the need for a warning, IMHO, but I think one can make an argument that if the US really wanted to warn the Japanese, they could have done a better job.



Sultanofsham -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 10:01:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

NAh. There was a long article in USNI "Proceedings" about the myth of the million man casualty figure - and its just that, a myth. [:-]


Got anything to back that up that we can take a look at?



Sultanofsham -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 10:02:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
just a curios question: Were the american nukes equipped with a self-destruct in case the bombs would fail to work ?


Other than hitting the ground no.



Synjin -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 10:41:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

quote:

I wouldnt say that the kurds are his very own people, they were a group of people that are in iraq that wanted independence, and werent exactly trust worthy in the eyes of saddam. Too me, I see america doing the same trying to surpress the shia(islamic) uprising just like saddam, they are a problem for iraq some would say


They WERE his own people; a different ethnic or religious group, but still as Iraqis as the Shia or Sunni. Did they want independence? Yes; so do the Norhtern Irish Catholics; Are they not UK subjects then? Of course the UK would never gas the Northern Irish, but that is PRECISELY the difference, the UK would not gas their own subjects, neither would Spain gas the Basques, or France the Corsicans (Two other countries with Independence seeking areas).


I kinda wish the Canadians would gas the Quebecois... but that might just be me.



mogami -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 10:52:12 PM)

Hi, I watched a History Channel program where they said "The US dropped the first bomb 11 days before Japan planned on dropping one of their own" [X(] (but to be fair I might have mistaken this statement it might have been "11 days before Japan planned on test detonating one of theirs"



Guderon -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 11:09:15 PM)

Whatever the source, it was mistaken. No one else in the world was even close to testing a nuclear device in August '45.



mdiehl -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 11:26:40 PM)

Mogami, the HC was wrong. There is an authoritative book written by the head of the Japanese bomb project ... it's pretty old now. Basically says that they never made it past low level radioisotope tests and essentially put the project on a "maintenance" budget in 1943. IIRC the justification for killing the project came from looking at his budget requests -- the Japanese gov't decided that an atomic bomb was beyond anybody's financial reach on a time scale of the war.



jleinawe -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/26/2004 11:47:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ggallagher

Jack...am in total agreement re political debate...was just set off by a perception of historical revisionism.

FWIW, one of the tragedies of modern life (both here in the US and abroad) is the lack of knowledge that the vast majority of people have regarding such historical contexts. We wargamers tend to be better read than most and can appreciate (and debate) the various issues with a bit better appreciation for the past.

And BTW, this sense of historical deja vu also needs to be understood within today's context on issues such as Muslim/Japanese internment.....Patriot Act (ugh!).....Nazi/Terrorist appeasement, etc.

I may be too much an alarmist, but I get a feeling that we may look back on the 2000's in the same way the world looked back on the 1930's.....




So tell me where we are rounding up all American's of Muslim decent?



nmzoomie -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/27/2004 2:55:20 AM)

This is just a general statement. It is very nice to see a lively debate such as this, even if it does become less than civil at times. I would only say that for some it is very frightening to see closely held beliefs challenged (both sides), and attack is perhaps a natural reaction. Please keep in mind that human events, especially war are very complex. If you think you hold the absolute truth you are certainly wrong. If somebody tells you they do, it is probably best to keep an eye on em. Keep an open mind and for all you cranky wargamers, take a nap. A god nap always makes me feel better. [>:]



CatLord -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 1:10:56 AM)

There was a documentary about U-boot U234 trying to carry uranium from Germany to Japan on the British Television on Channel 4 a while back:

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/lastdays1.html

Cat



kaleun -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 1:16:22 AM)

A very interesting read on the German bomb is "Heisenberg's war" (Heisenberg of "uncertainty principle" fame)
It actually shows that the Germans were on the wrong track altogether. Heisenberg does say that the scientists had made a collective decision not to be successful in developing an atomic bomb because they did not want Adolf to have it. (You may want to take that with a discrete pinch of salt though)[:-]



ggallagher -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 3:03:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lein

quote:

ORIGINAL: ggallagher




So tell me where we are rounding up all American's of Muslim decent?


lein: You may recall that post-911 a large number of muslim americans were in fact detained - and many without immediate access to lawyers. (http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-so0078.html) No, we are not rounding up ALL muslim-americans.....and, by the way, during WW2 not ALL Japanese-Americans were interned. Seems that only the ones in California sitting on rather prime real estate were interned and their property confiscated. {Can you say "land grab"?)The Japanese-Americans in Hawaii were never interned, as in fact, they were required to harvest the crops in that state.

I guess the Japanese-Americans in Palos Verdes were a more strategic threat than the ones in Hawaii.....Now, please remind me, just where is Pearl Harbor located again?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 3:23:47 AM)

While the whole treatment of Japanese Americans in WWII is deplorable; let's not
throw up any "red herrings". California was the site of a high percentage of the
US's military A/C production in 1942, most of the oil that feuled the Pacific War was
pumped there. and it was the "home base" and primary repair facility of ships that
were damaged in the Pacific. A lot of potential sabotage targets. It wasn't about
"stealing land" from a bunch of shop owners and gardeners..., it was irrational
paranoia coupled with plentiful "strategic sites" that got the Japanese Americans
moved to the middle of nowhere.



ggallagher -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 3:59:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While the whole treatment of Japanese Americans in WWII is deplorable; let's not
throw up any "red herrings". California was the site of a high percentage of the
US's military A/C production in 1942, most of the oil that feuled the Pacific War was
pumped there. and it was the "home base" and primary repair facility of ships that
were damaged in the Pacific. A lot of potential sabotage targets. It wasn't about
"stealing land" from a bunch of shop owners and gardeners..., it was irrational
paranoia coupled with plentiful "strategic sites" that got the Japanese Americans
moved to the middle of nowhere.


Red herring my butt....try talking to some of the Japanese-Americans around here (Southern California) who were directly effected, and do a little research on the nature of the land that was taken from them. So tell me again why the Japanese-Americans living on Hawaii were not interned?

Quote from an article on the period:

Envy over economic success combined with distrust over cultural separateness and long-standing anti-Asian racism turned into disaster when the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Lobbyists from western states, many representing competing economic interests or nativist groups, pressured Congress and the President to remove persons of Japanese descent from the west coast, both foreign born (issei – meaning “first generation” of Japanese in the U.S.) and American citizens (nisei – the second generation of Japanese in America, U.S. citizens by birthright.)....

Bottom-line, be sure to look beyond/beneath the "popular history" versions of such events - the realities, motivations, etc. oft-times prove to be far more complex....



Arnir -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 5:04:13 AM)

And one should also look at the actors involved and who had the authority to do what. This is from distant memory so I'm not stating this too strongly, but IIRC the authorities in Hawaii did not see the Japanese there as a major threat like the public on the West Coast did. (They also seemed to have a higher opinion of civil rights). They also had a very different political situation that the West Coast hysteria. I always found it interesting that the West Coast appeared to panic more than Hawaii, but I digress. People in Hawaii did not have the political clout as those in the then-actual states of the United States.

Clamping onto the New Leftish economics uber alles explanation is just as simplistic as the "popular history" of the period.



ggallagher -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 6:59:03 AM)

LOL...first time I've ever been described as a revisionist / New Leftist - and ironic, given my earlier participation in this thread re revisionism in regards to our use of the nuke vs. Japan......Have pretty much been a radical free-marketeer all my life. Pointing out the excesses and outright crimes of war profiteers, rail barons and the like does not make one a New Leftist, nor a Nazi. OTOH, an en masse ignoring of the economic motivations of those involved in the political dynamics of the time (past or present) can make us a nation of sheep.


And I do suggest that anyone expressing an opinion on this subject actually read some primary research on it, and not just the Encarta entries or recollections of what they learned in high school history class. As I mentioned earlier, I just happened to discuss this subject with my VP of Sales, who happens to be both a long time resident of one of the major pre-war Japanese-American communities who also married into one of the families interred. They (his in-laws) pretty much were convinced that the underlying motivation behind the political dynamic was economic - some jealousy, some outright theft as the motivation in acquiring heretofore untillable farmland that the Japanese settlers had turned productive.

Shall I bore you all with such a list of references, or would we rather just argue from the standpoint of our own personal political viewpoints and prejudices?



Arnir -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 6:55:26 PM)

LOL. No, no need to get into a whose bibliography is bigger discussion. [:)] I wasn't trying to call you a New Left person (let alone a Nazi - hmm, a New Left Nazi, now that would be an interesting viewpoint), I've just been reading a bunch of debates about Kolko and his ilk. I agree with you that the issues are more complex than most get into. My point was just that leaping to economics (for anyone, not you in particular) as "the cause" is also simplistic. My apologies for not being more specific.

Any historic act has a multitude of factors. The catalyst actors may have had fewer motivations but the cast that becomes attached to the issue brings in a multitude of other motivations. One groups desires do not necessarily affect any others but they can certainly taint the situation.

Personally, this issue is not of great personal interest to me, at least not as far as research goes so I don't need any long list of sources. Others, however, might benefit from your knowledge. Regarding your friends, I'm sure that they bring a valuable insight into the discussion. However, and I'm sure you are well aware of this from your comments about research, etc., the statements of victims regarding the motivations of their tormentors must be seen as biased. They are valid but not enough to solely support a thesis. (Unless that thesis is about the viewpoints of said group).

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing at all about the motivations/issues. If I ever get this dissertation done somehow I still don't think I will be doing Japanese internments in the US/Canada. Just not my cup of tea.



ggallagher -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 9:50:04 PM)

Actually, I think to a degee we are violently in agreement....[:D]

As you note the precipitating factors and motivations of the actors involved are quite complex. On an aggregate level it wopuld be overly simplistic to say that the cause was purely "xenophobia" or "economic"....

But for some of the key players (both in public and behind the scenes), their motivations were often on the "what's in it for me" side of things, rather than "protect the homeland".

And BTW, perhaps I overreacted a bit to the "uber alles" phrase as to Naziism.

Now, let's get back to our regularly scheduled (computer) war......



Arnir -> RE: Japan=Nukes? (7/28/2004 10:57:32 PM)

We only hurt the ones we lov, uh, agree with. [:)]

Back to the war!!!

(Sorry about the uber alles, I tend to use it to denote something over-encompassing and not for Nazis, but I should know better.)

I wish you luck in your campaigns. Until we hunt you down and slaughter you, that is. [:)][;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.156006