Forums | MacLife

Ok, so he had private instructions for "peace at any price" from the Emperor. Who was running Japan back then? The Emperor? No. It was the Army. The Emperor was a figure head.
   

Obviously, if he was giving instructions, he was more than a figurehead. 

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido

Perhaps they were assisted, but they would have surrendered anyway.  In fact, the US forces seem to regret wasting alot of effort on a Japan that was going to surrender.  Keep in mind that this is not just reporting, this is from the US military itself.

We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled  as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional  surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet  reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had  been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and  was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the  inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining  problem was the timing and terms of that surrender.

So, according the US military, neither an invasion or the A-bombs were necessary to make Japan surrender.  They also seem to feel that they were overpreparing for an unnecessary battle, but that is not my point.

Keep in mind that:
1.  This is not a Western society.  Even if the Emperor was limited in legal power, when he said something, it carried a lot of weight -- he is the Emperor.  He obviously had power at that time, as I said.

2.  The Russian question is not my point.  Again, I am just saying that Japan would have surrendered without the A-bomb, and without an invasion.    That's it.  That's all.

One more time
Neither an invasion nor the bombs were necessary for surrender.

the A-Bomb was the most humane.

Do you really think the A-bombs were more humane than an air campaign? 

I have my doubts.
However, I will grant that no one at that time knew about the long-range problems from radiation sickness, which is the worst effect of the A-bombs.

One more time
Neither an invasion nor the bombs were necessary for surrender.

Yes, I can read. I do understand you believe that. You don't need to keep repeating it.

Do you really think the A-bombs were more humane than an air campaign? 

I have my doubts.

The facts seem to be against you. From what I can find online, between 70,000 and 100,000 died at Hiroshima. Between 50,000 and 70,000 at Nagasaki. In a conventional raid against Tokyo, over 100,000 died. When the Allies bombed Dresden, in Germany, over 135,000 died.

What you have to remember is that during an A Bomb attack, only one bomb would be dropped, from one plane. For a conventional raid, thousands of fully loaded bombers were involved. While the A-Bomb was more powerful than any other induvidual weapon, the sheer numbers of craft and munitions involved in a conventional attack made up for that.

And don't think that conventional attacks could target specific munitions plants or anything. The way Japanese cities were set up during WWII, virtually every house was a factory. The target and "collateral damage" were often the same thing.

If we simply kept up with conventional bombing raids, not only would the surrender been longer in coming; meaning POWs and civilian prisoners would have suffered longer (they were used as slaves, starved, and experimented upon while alive), more Japanese innocents would have died from the raids, the Japanese may have used the biological weapons they had (as they did against China), the Chinese and Philipino civilians would have suffered longer under a brutal Japanese rule, and the Japanese military would have had more time to adopt advanced German technology, but the surrender may not have happened at all. Mere days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese Emporer narrowly avoided a coup by the military hardliners. How many more do you think he could have avoided?

Still think that conventional raids would have been more humane?

No, where'd you get that idea from?

The rest of the thread.

No, where'd you get that idea from?

The rest of the thread.

Aside from the title, which has already been pointed out to have been meant as sarcastic, show me where anyone is celebrating nuking Japan.

Nevermind neut...I shouldn't have quoted you, because I wasn't really directing that question towards you.

Well, ok. I'm still confuzed though. I don't see how anyone was celebrating...

you're celebrating the creation of the neutron bomb, jerk

between 70,000 and 100,000 died at Hiroshima. Between 50,000 and 70,000 at Nagasaki. In a conventional raid against Tokyo, over 100,000 died. When the Allies bombed Dresden, in Germany, over 135,000 died.

The horror.

We didn't even know if the first one was going to go off. It'd be kinda stupid to have the Japanese watch an awesome display of American power, then have it be a dud.

And like I said before, the A-Bomb wasn't as destructive as conventional bombing raids anyway. Should we have firebombed the ocean too? Maybe before we attacked Okinawa we should have just had the fleet hang out along the coast and shell the water, and have the Army shoot their M1's at the water too. That'd probably scare the Japanese.

Or not. War is not a police action. War is not a show of power. It's life or death. Kill or be killed. The object is to inflict enough destruction on the enemy as to destroy his capacity to wage war, and do so as fast as possible with the least amount of friendly casulties as possible.