RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 1:23:51 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

This will be my last post on the matter. I disagree on your assertion that the Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January 1945. I disagree with your assertions that the prospect of the civilian population starving would have encouraged a drive for peace. I disagree with your calculation of total lives lost with or without the bomb.

Thanks for the discussion.

_____________________________

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 61

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 2:10:34 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

This issue of "reasonable terms" keeps coming up here. To the US they weren't reasonable.

FDR laid out the doctrine of unconditional surrender at Casablanca in January 1943. Churchill and Stalin agreed, after some protest by Churchill. That was the position of the Allies from that date until August 1945. The Japanese were well aware of this.

The terms of January 1945 were not unconditional. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" they were. They were not unconditional. But note carefully that in January 1945 the US had not experienced either Iwo Jima or Okinawa. In January 1945 Germany was still fighting like crazy. In that month no one knew if the Bomb would be ready or would work. And FDR was still alive and US was his policy.

By August each of these factors had changed.

A blockade might have worked, over time. Truman didn't have that time, either politically with the US population after Okinawa (vast losses), economically with the prospect of economic upheaval and inflation over pent-up civilian demand, or geopolitically with Stalin's early moves in eastern Europe. He had the Bomb and it worked. There is ample evidence from Potsdam that he never really considered NOT using it. It gave him leverage over Stalin and the Japanese had known the terms available to them for over 2.5 years. He could not justify spending one more American life rather than try the Bomb. Again, there is ample evidence from the Potsdam conference that the question was nonsensical to him. He had the weapon and no Americans would die if it were used. You have to remember this was before the Cold War, escalation, MAD, and all the things we take for granted. To HST it was just a really big bomb. You can't engage in presentism over the issue.

After the twin bombings Japan offered essentially the terms of January 1945, but conditions had changed for the US. The Soviets were moving in eastern Asia, Britain was out of the war, FDR was dead, and the US public was far more war-weary than they had been eight months previously. The Emperor was an acceptable trade-off in August. That piece was wholly unacceptable in January. It's a fair question if FDR would have allowed that small back-slide. We'll never know.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/27/2014 3:13:48 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 62

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 2:13:59 AM

BattleMoose

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline

The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. Civilians.

I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 63

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 4:33:59 AM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

Richard Franks (author of Guadalcanal) studied this question in his more recent book Downfall. Among the points he raises:

- The use of the atom-bomb was inevitable, once it was proven at the Trinity test. I tend to agree w/ Frank's intimation that, had Germany still been a combatant in August '45, the 1st atom-bomb would have been used against Berlin. The Manhattan Project was conceived & pursued as a weapon, only its use could have justified its cost (roughly half that of the creation / production / operation of the B-29 bomber force).
- The January terms unofficially mooted by the Japanese were unacceptable to the US (no Allied occupation, retention of pre-Dec '41 IJ territory, war-crimes prosecuted under IJ aegis, &c.). The Japanese rejection of the Potsdam declaration strengthened US political resolve to acheive a military solution. Frank notes that Hiroshima was the HQ of IJ forces on Kyushu. IJHQ was committed to spending all available resources (including non-uniformed civilian militia) to resist the invasion, as a last-gasp effort to prove that the Japanese Home Islands were unconquerable.
- In late July '45, Admirals King & Nimitz were considering backing off from their support of the Olympic invasion, b/c Ultra intelligence had revealed the massive build-up of IJ Army & air forces in Kyushu, well above the opposition expected when planning for the operation began. Olympic would have been an epic blood-bath. IMO the IJ could have prevailed at at least one of the 3 invasion beaches, their kamikazes could have scored heavily against loaded US transport shipping, & the post-invasion combat would have been awful. US war-weapons included napalm & white phosphoros, & large stocks of gas (mustard gas?) were available.
- Removal of the USN's imprimatur would have forced cancellation of the invasion, the US would likely have relied solely on continued blockade and bombardment. Japan's remaining coastal shipping & rudimentary rail network would have been quickly destroyed, resulting in massive starvation of the Japanese population.
- The Soviets would have entered the war regardless, conquering Manchuria & Sakhalin, but unrestrained from invading Hokkaido as well. At this time, US distrust of Soviet post-war intentions was growing, but had not yet reached Cold-War status. Even so, US politicos had no interest in sharing post-war occupation of Japan w/ anyone else, whatever their nationality.
- In addition to the war casualties suffered by Allied & Japanese military forces, and to Japanese civilians, civilian deaths in Asia were accruing at a rate of ~250,000 per month due to famine, disease & general nastiness. Thoughts on the 'nuclear equation' that ended WWII must include consideration of the effects of the quick, decisive end to WWII on the civilians of greater Asia as well as Japan.

Speaking for myself, I recall the last of the 4-part aphorism that Churchill wrote to the frontispiece of his history of WWII. I believe he wrote, "In victory, magnanimity." When MacArthur was installed as SCAP, pro-consul of occupied Japan, he demanded (& rec'd) shipments of foodstuffs, to relieve famine in Occupied Japan. Mebbe Mac's finest hour was his service to the Japanese population, after their surrender.

Lots of ink & pixels have been expended on the use of the atom-bomb. It's true that many civilians died, but it's also true that it gave the 'short sharp shock' that ended WWII. For a world weary of war, the price was low enough.

(in reply to BattleMoose)

Post #: 64

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 5:53:02 AM

VegasOZ

Posts: 295
Joined: 7/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. Civilians.

I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.

The Japanese government had officially declared and announced that all persons of the nation were drafted into the armed services in defense of the homeland and the emperor.

No civilians were killed at either target city. Only combatants were killed.

(in reply to BattleMoose)

Post #: 65

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 8:23:04 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Warspite

I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??

I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp

The atomic bombs' modelling in the game has been a point of contention.

There is a 'political' cost to using >2 atomic bombs in the game, per the manual. Please read that aspect under victory conditions. It's not PP per se-it's a shift in the victory conditions. Does this model the 'political cost' for which you seek?

From limited numbers of games getting to late 1945, there has been limited information on game usage of this weapon. I think consensus is that the bombs are decidedly 'underpowered' regarding their effect on military units in the hex, LI/HI destroyed (and damaged), factories and so forth.

As an exclusively Japanese player, I'd be gobsmacked (good word for the lexicon, thanks my English friends) if my Allied opponent didn't use them (at least the two 'freebies').

Back to this specific AE game mechanic point.

There are several threads which discuss the game impact of using the Atomic bomb. The following thread is one of the better ones.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3019336&mpage=1&key=atomic%2Cbomb?

Essentially it is eye candy. To a large extent the relative anaemic effect is due to the effect being limited to 32k. One of the devs (Terminus) in another a-bomb thread confirmed that the 32k is a coding maximum upper limit. It is a carry over from classical WITP.

Alfred

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 66

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 8:29:16 AM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. Civilians.
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.

Dammit, BattleMoose, I agree w/ your sentiment, but is there any part of war that spares non-combatants?
Read some history, my god, everything from the biblical plagues on Egypt, the Mongol expansion to the west, the European wars of several centuries duration, the American westward expansion, the aerial bombardments of Chunking, Rotterdam, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima - it's all about killing civilians. That's what war does best, organized power kills civilians to acheive greater political power, and has done so throughout recorded history.

Famous victories have been won over the bodies of dead civilians, who might have been engaged in labor strikes, or local political insurrection, or land-disputes, or religious differences, or just b/c they got caught in the cross-fire between colonial governerships. From the ashes, we raise our children to believe in higher ideals, yet they find themselves trapped in endless war.

(in reply to BattleMoose)

Post #: 67

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 9:17:33 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

Dropping the bombs was relatively cheap. Invasion or starvation of the HI most certainly would have cost more lives.

There is also another way to look at it:

- What if the bombs were not dropped? Nobody would have witnessed the terrible destruction, illness and death it could cause. That might have caused somebody somewhere to drop the bomb years after the war (a much more powerful version...).. Don't you think that is scary?

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 68

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 9:31:49 AM

BattleMoose

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ
The Japanese government had officially declared and announced that all persons of the nation were drafted into the armed services in defense of the homeland and the emperor.

No civilians were killed at either target city. Only combatants were killed.

Nonsense, they were civilians. By just about every definition of the word that exists. And certainly by Geneva convention standards.

(in reply to VegasOZ)

Post #: 69

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 9:37:38 AM

BattleMoose

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. Civilians.
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.

Dammit, BattleMoose, I agree w/ your sentiment, but is there any part of war that spares non-combatants?
Read some history, my god, everything from the biblical plagues on Egypt, the Mongol expansion to the west, the European wars of several centuries duration, the American westward expansion, the aerial bombardments of Chunking, Rotterdam, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima - it's all about killing civilians. That's what war does best, organized power kills civilians to acheive greater political power, and has done so throughout recorded history.

Famous victories have been won over the bodies of dead civilians, who might have been engaged in labor strikes, or local political insurrection, or land-disputes, or religious differences, or just b/c they got caught in the cross-fire between colonial governerships. From the ashes, we raise our children to believe in higher ideals, yet they find themselves trapped in endless war.

The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.

Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.

But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 70

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 9:42:31 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.

Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.

But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.

So, what was the alternative?

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to BattleMoose)

Post #: 71

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:03:07 AM

RogerJNeilson

Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

Ok all very hypothetical stuff. Just to chuck another slant in and then jump back into my trench.....

If one wants to simply try and compare the deaths from those two bombs versus the supposed deaths had the invasion been necessary, and extrapolate further, it stopped dead in in its tracks any thought Stalin might have had of further expansion until he had his own to play with.... so how many deaths would have occurred had the Soviets decided with their massive war machine they could take a little bit more of Europe once the German forces were out of the game?

Hypothetical argument.

Roger

< Message edited by Roger Neilson 3 -- 12/27/2014 11:04:02 AM >

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 72

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:08:25 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.

Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.

But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.

So, what was the alternative?

warspite1

The alternatives depend on your point of view -as discussed in the previous pages e.g:

- some believe there was no reason to drop the bomb - the Japanese were about to surrender
- others believe in no bombs - but no invasion either. Instead the Japanese would be starved into submission
- others believe that invasion was the only way to get the Japanese to surrender; and rather than go down this route, the use of the bombs was preferable.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 73

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:11:54 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

I hope this thread doesn't go pear shaped. It's been getting a little close.

Though as an observation, I note the title of the thread is actually a statement that we collectively are atomic bombs.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 74

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:17:39 AM

BattleMoose

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.

Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.

But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.

So, what was the alternative?

You are limited only by your imagination. Doesn't change my position that purposefully killing civilians is wrong.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 75

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:20:51 AM

RogerJNeilson

Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

Even more hypothetical argument......

Country A develops a massive weapon theoretically in such secrecy that it stays a secret.

Country A thinks perhaps its a useful thing to have to threaten others and keep the peace....

Country A realises that as long as it stays theoretical other countries, especially Country B will not take it seriously

Country A realises it needs to demonstrate its power..... and there is a handy island nowhere near their own troops.... and it needs to show the actual effects rather than use it on some atoll away from the world.

Now we get into very murky waters indeed.

Roger

One of the baby boomers who was raised in a very black and white world with no shades of grey, who since has discovered there's no black or white and an awful lot of grey.

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 76

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:21:50 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
The deliberate and purposeful targeting of civilians is never okay. Civilians.
I completely reject the argument of killing civilians to save others. Doesn't matter if its true (which is also very much disputed), its still not at all okay.

Dammit, BattleMoose, I agree w/ your sentiment, but is there any part of war that spares non-combatants?
Read some history, my god, everything from the biblical plagues on Egypt, the Mongol expansion to the west, the European wars of several centuries duration, the American westward expansion, the aerial bombardments of Chunking, Rotterdam, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima - it's all about killing civilians. That's what war does best, organized power kills civilians to acheive greater political power, and has done so throughout recorded history.

Famous victories have been won over the bodies of dead civilians, who might have been engaged in labor strikes, or local political insurrection, or land-disputes, or religious differences, or just b/c they got caught in the cross-fire between colonial governerships. From the ashes, we raise our children to believe in higher ideals, yet they find themselves trapped in endless war.

The purposeful part of my original statement is critical. Killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, abhorrent, no other word for it.

Bombing a factory and accidentally killing civilians is really unfortunate and we head into a very grey area. Re collateral damage. It happens, it will always happen. Its an intrinsic part of warfare and we have done much to try and limit it.

But this isn't what Hiroshima was. Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited. It effectively had no means to make new weapons. It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians. To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.

warspite1

quote:

Japan's ability to wage war at this point was extremely limited.

No, they still maintained enough power to continue to kill hundreds of thousands of Chinese, prisoners of war, Allied servicemen (Soviets too).

quote:

To hold the people of Japan hostage and then killing hundreds and thousands of them.

Hold hostage? Not sure I understand that. Japan was, by any measure, a beaten nation - yes they still had the power to inflict hurt as per above, but they were beaten.

Their living God Emperor simply had to give the word to end the madness and save his people (even if he cared about nothing else) from this madness. If you choose to look at it in those terms, who was holding those civilians hostage? The Emperor or the Allies?

quote:

It was to kill people, that was what it was, a deliberate attempt to kill people, civilians.

Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to BattleMoose)

Post #: 77

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:30:58 AM

RogerJNeilson

Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

Would agree that the deliberate killing of civilians is wrong, but would ask when the first occurrence of such an act took place? I suspect records don't go back that far.

Bomber Command deliberately targeted civilian areas in Germany, Dresden came pretty close to the same level of devastation as the Nagaskai bomb.

Civilians on the NE coast of England were shelled by the German High Seas Fleet in WW1.

The Red Army when it took control of Berlin caused massive civilian deaths - post victory this was.

Anyone in any besieged city throughout history that did not surrender to the besiegers would potentially be slaughtered on its conquest.

The BOMB is simply the scale and psychological impact, not the actual death toll.

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 78

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:36:27 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

You are limited only by your imagination. Doesn't change my position that purposefully killing civilians is wrong.

I think most people here agree with that position. It is also very black and white and easy to sympathize with.. I don't think there were any good options in august 1945.. There was just a lot of bad ones that would work....

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to BattleMoose)

Post #: 79

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 10:58:18 AM

BattleMoose

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline

War is a whole series of bad options, and only some of them work.

Taking Japanese civilians hostage. If you don't surrender, we will kill them (Japanese civilians, hostages).

quote:

Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.

I don't accept the idea that its okay to kill civilians to save others, even if more. I am sure there are a half a dozen people whose lives could be saved from the use of your organs.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 80

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 11:05:51 AM

LeeChard

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you :)

quote:

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

While discussing the pros and cons of the cost of invasion to the US or Japan,
we seem to be overlooking the millions of people under Japanese occupation.
What happens to them while we starve out Japan?

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 81

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 11:36:17 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you :)

quote:

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

While discussing the pros and cons of the cost of invasion to the US or Japan,
we seem to be overlooking the millions of people under Japanese occupation.
What happens to them while we starve out Japan?

warspite1

Please see Post 77. I mentioned specifically the Chinese - but of course this applies to all under Japanese occupation. As I said to Pontiouspilot - slowly starving the Japanese population to death (and all that means for others (prisoners of war, those under occupation)) does not bear thinking about - and was politically impossible.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/27/2014 12:37:34 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to LeeChard)

Post #: 82

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 11:43:32 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

War is a whole series of bad options, and only some of them work.

Taking Japanese civilians hostage. If you don't surrender, we will kill them (Japanese civilians, hostages).

quote:

Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.

I don't accept the idea that its okay to kill civilians to save others, even if more. I am sure there are a half a dozen people whose lives could be saved from the use of your organs.

warspite1

I'm sure they could, but that is not a very helpful analogy.

But that is your view and, whilst strongly disagreeing, I respect your right to hold it.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to BattleMoose)

Post #: 83

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 1:45:12 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

For those that wondered what Japan would be doing in other areas while blockade/invasion was occurring (and especially those worrying about killing civilians) we have a great example in the below. Around late '44 early '45 the Andaman Islands (Port Blair) were cut off from receiving any food/supplies, i.e. blockaded. While a small scale example, it seems likely that this same 'tale' would have been carried out everywhere Japan still had troops while the war still raged. So saying killing civilians is horrible and unacceptable by the bomb, does not change the fact that far more civilians would have been killed by Japanese troops as the war continued. Not to mention the abuse/torture that would have continued to be inflicted. So I am easily on the side that using the bomb to end the war, saved many more civilian live from a lot of things that were worse than death. As using the bomb stopped all of this a lot quicker.

In addition to these performances, local women were recruited by Bakshi as �comfort women� for the Japanese garrison, although due to unhappy later took women from Korea and Malaya. The Japanese built a new airport near Port Blair, and for that used forced labor. In October 1942 he conducted mass arrests of �spies�, imprisoning some 300 people in the Cellular Jail, where many were tortured. Of these, seven were executed, including Narayan Rao, who was Superintendent of Police under occupation, Itter Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Subedar Singh Up Military Police and Dr. Surinder Nag. Realizing that the Japanese began to focus on influential members of the population, members of the League of India Indenpendencia became nervous, and reduced their participation in nationalist activities. In 1943, a second wave of terror carried out by the new commander of the garrison, Colonel Renusakai Jochi, and the Chief of Police, Mitsubashi, both of which were previously stationed in Nanjing. 600 people were arrested and tortured under his charge, including Dr. Diwan Singh, who died as a result of his injuries. At that point in the war the Japanese felt that Bakshi was no longer useful to them and imprisoned.

As food became escaza in 1945, the Japanese resorted to even more desperate methods. Between 250 and 700 people (estimates vary) in the region of south Andaman Aberdeen were deported to an uninhabited island to grow food. According to the stories of a survivor, a convict named Ali Saudagar who had been released by the Japanese, at least six people drowned or were eaten by sharks to be pushed to their boats in the dark, while the rest died of starvation or were killed by Burmese pirates. A rescue mission was sent to the island when the occupation ended and found but twelve survivors and more than two hundred skeletons on the beach.

In total, an estimated 2,000 people died in the islands as a result of the occupation, and at least 501 were tortured. That amount represents 10% of the population of Port Blair before the war. Declines in the Nicobar Islands (which are much less populated) were lower, as the Japanese did not have a garrison there. However, in 1943 created a small period of terror in Car Nicobar where nicobarenses kidnapped for forced labor. The occupation left a legacy of rejection towards the Japanese, and to some extent to the Azad Hind who collaborated with the occupiers, among the generation that suffered the occupation.

Source
http://www.desertwar.net/japanese-occupation-of-the-andaman-islands.html

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 84

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 2:46:01 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

Lots of ink & pixels have been expended on the use of the atom-bomb. It's true that many civilians died, but it's also true that it gave the 'short sharp shock' that ended WWII. For a world weary of war, the price was low enough.

The "short sharp shock" had already been delivered before Nagasaki was obliterated in the form of the Soviets disregarding the Neutrality Pact . And it was more of "overwhelming " than a short or sharp - after all, the Japanese had been looking to the Russians to serve as middle-men in negotations and for them to suddenly turn against Japan did more to rattle the corridors of power than the destruction of major cities.

@ Numdydar

The question is would the Japanese behave the same way towards their own population? There is quite a difference between a conquered population with unfamiliar language and culture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you :)

quote:

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

While discussing the pros and cons of the cost of invasion to the US or Japan,
we seem to be overlooking the millions of people under Japanese occupation.
What happens to them while we starve out Japan?

warspite1

Please see Post 77. I mentioned specifically the Chinese - but of course this applies to all under Japanese occupation. As I said to Pontiouspilot - slowly starving the Japanese population to death (and all that means for others (prisoners of war, those under occupation)) does not bear thinking about - and was politically impossible.

"We'll burn people alive with naplam indescriminately and drop this bomb that wipes out entire cities, but we can't starve them! That's politically impossible."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

This issue of "reasonable terms" keeps coming up here. To the US they weren't reasonable.

FDR laid out the doctrine of unconditional surrender at Casablanca in January 1943. Churchill and Stalin agreed, after some protest by Churchill. That was the position of the Allies from that date until August 1945. The Japanese were well aware of this.

That, really, is the root cause of this whole debate. The notion of unconditional surrender meant that the Japanese had to be ground down to the point that they became willing to accept unconditional surrender. At the time, a great deal of grinding was needed to overcome the jingoism within sections of the Japanese military.

The debate over the merits of the Allies insisting upon unconditional surrender is for another thread I think.

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 85

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 3:48:27 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

"We'll burn people alive with naplam indescriminately and drop this bomb that wipes out entire cities, but we can't starve them! That's politically impossible."

Warspite1

Hee Hee you like the little word games.

Yes, the Short, Sharp Shock referred to previously was, for the reasons discussed, the best of a bunch of bad options.

Slowly starving the Japanese population over an extended period of time (with all that would mean for POW and those under occupation) would have been politically, morally and practically impossible.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/27/2014 4:50:46 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 86

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 5:09:29 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

That, really, is the root cause of this whole debate. The notion of unconditional surrender meant that the Japanese had to be ground down to the point that they became willing to accept unconditional surrender. At the time, a great deal of grinding was needed to overcome the jingoism within sections of the Japanese military.

The debate over the merits of the Allies insisting upon unconditional surrender is for another thread I think.

As part of my undergraduate History degree I read a short essay/book about the subject of unconditional surrender. I still have my copy. The volume is in print:

http://www.amazon.com/Diplomacy-Victory-Unconditional-Surrender-American/dp/039309765X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419703032&sr=1-1&keywords=diplomacy+for+victory

Professor O'Connor was in favor of the policy, arguing among other things that it forced Churchill to sidestep colonial concerns and focus on the core war objectives. He addresses many of the points brought up in this thread.

In no war before or since has the USA demanded unconditional surrender. WWII was different for us in ways I don't think Europeans understand. The war in the PTO was a war of fury, begun by deceit and a sneak attack that struck at deeply-held American notions of how nations should behave. There was also a very significant racial factor not present in the ETO. These are two reasons for my previous comments concerning HST's thoughts about use of the Bomb at Potsdam, documented in many places but very well in the Pulitzer-winning biography by David McCullough. It simply did not occur to him not to use it given the 2.5 year extant policy of unconditional surrender, that Japan had started the war, and that he had a potential means to bring about surrender without expending any more American lives. The US public simply did not equate Japanese civilian lives with US servicemen's. Japanese lives were worth less. Period.

It's a well-written and argued book if one is interested in the sweep of the policy. If you have an extensive WWII library it's worth the minimal price to include it, even if you disagree with its conclusions.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 87

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 5:12:49 PM

blueatoll

Posts: 157
Joined: 3/28/2013
Status: offline

While I don't have a Ph.D. on the subject, I do have 2 graduate classes about this subject under my belt (History and combined Government/Physics) from a reputable university.

Several points here:
1. Berlin would have been the target of the 1st bomb if Germany was still in action in late July 1945. 100% guarantee that.

2. The combined Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet invasions were predicted to have Allied dead at over 250,000 with well over 2,000,000 Allied overall (Coronet estimates alone were 1.2M) casualties. Japanese killed, military and civilian (remember the mass suicides at Saipan) were predicted well around 8-10 MILLION. Allied military command tacitly acknowledged that Soviet help (re. manpower) would be needed if the invasion dragged on into late 1946 if not earlier. 500,000 purple hearts were manufactured in preparation for Operation Olympic alone.

3. There was a significant movement, particularly among the scientists who built the bomb, to give Japan an announced 'test' demonstration of the power of the bomb's effectiveness by dropping it on a large forest (can't think of the name) near Tokyo. This idea was considered and rejected because the military didn't want to announce the forest would be destroyed by a super weapon only to have the bomb not detonate.

4. Curtis LeMay (surprise) was a huge proponent of the starvation plan where Japan would be blockaded by subs and the air force would firebomb cities into ruin. Office of Strategic Survey post-war analysis showed that this plan, while effective in limiting food supplies (and some materials) would not have had a significant impact on Japan's ability to defend the home islands due to Japanese soldiers/civilians demonstrated willingness to launch themselves in suicide attacks rather than surrender.

5. Allied commanders and politicos were highly motivated to limit Soviet actions in the Pacific after seeing Europe carved up and looking at the long-term political landscape, e.g. the coming Cold War. Ending the war as soon as possible was the best course of action.

6. Legitimate arguments from the Joint Chiefs - 'If we spent all that money to build it, we need to use it.'

7. And this one is the important one - See #2. MILLIONS OF CASUALTIES PREDICTED...MILLIONS...Japanese and Allied...

So justified, well it all depends on your favorite flavor of slaughter. It did end the war and MILLIONS didn't die so in the end it was the right decision.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 88

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 6:00:54 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

In all the hand wringing and "should we have, shouldn't we have" there is one question I have never heard posed. What would Japan have done? If they had the bomb , and a delivery system that worked , would they have bombed the USA? Would they have had this debate? Would they have hesitated? And would the leaders of Japan that planned Pearl Harbor , Nanking, and hundreds of other "atrocities" have considered any of their members who objected to such a plan "sane"? It's a question worth considering. Without the hindsight of history.

And other questions that should be considered: Would the Nazi's? Would Stalin's Russia?

_____________________________

(in reply to blueatoll)

Post #: 89

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 6:23:25 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In all the hand wringing and "should we have, shouldn't we have" there is one question I have never heard posed. What would Japan have done? If they had the bomb , and a delivery system that worked , would they have bombed the USA? Would they have had this debate? Would they have hesitated? And would the leaders of Japan that planned Pearl Harbor , Nanking, and hundreds of other "atrocities" have considered any of their members who objected to such a plan "sane"? It's a question worth considering. Without the hindsight of history.

And other questions that should be considered: Would the Nazi's? Would Stalin's Russia?

It's a matter of opinion, but I don't consider this a relevant question. In line with the current debate in the US over the Senate's post-9/11 torture report. It doesn't matter what our enemies would do. We're better than them.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 90