Japan and the Bomb

[Doc Daneeka]

Although this was obviously not a consideration at the time, it's probably worth noting that the droppings of the bombs probably saved a very large number of Japanese lives, and quite possibly saved a large chunk of the country from 45 years of soviet rule.

It's commonly argued that one important reason they were dropped was due to the massive casualty projections for operations Olympic and Coronet. It is much less commonly noted that there was a great deal of internal controversy at the time as to whether such operations should have been mounted in the first place. General LeMay for instance argued very strongly in favour of a plan that would at the very least lead to massive starvation among Japanese civilians. That is, concentrating conventional bombers on transportation networks. It was quite a common view in the USAAF and USN that continued blockade and bombing would be enough to end the war without resort to invasion. At any rate, even with the decision to risk invasion, LeMay still had a lot of time left to do horrific damage to the country.

In addition to that, it would probably have meant Soviet occupation of at least Hokkaido. I've discussed this topic many times with a Japanese friend, who likes to joke that if anyone on earth could have made Soviet-style communism work, it would probably be the Japanese. All joking aside, imagine all the extra possibilities for additional crises during the cold war.

Note that I am of course not arguing that the use of the bombs was justified. However, in hindsight it might have been for the best, for both Japan and the USA.

 

[Radrook]

I've often wondered what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered after the 2nd atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

We were out of a-bombs at that point. I suppose that since Japan couldn't mount an offense at that point that we could have just waited to make more atomic bombs. We could have blockaded the country and continued with conventional bombing. But if 2 a-bombs didn't work, would 10?

Does anyone know how long it took to make another atomic bomb?

Making more and dropping more would have only made the crime more horrendous. We are talking about killing civilians here--children, the aged, the sick, indiscriminately--or aren't you aware of that?

 

[Doc Daneeka]

Making more and dropping more would have only made the crime more horrendous. We are talking about killing civilians here--children, the aged, the sick, indiscriminately--or aren't you aware of that?

Not to excuse in any way the horrific practices which were common during that war, it should be borne in mind that there wasn't any real reason at the time for Truman (or most of the other leadership) to distinguish between nuclear and conventional weaponry in the way that we do today. As far as the morality of the bomb went, they tended to view it as just another in a long line of progressively larger, more horrifying, and more effective weapons, albeit one with special political implications.

In other words, civilians were already the main targets in Japan. As indeed they had been in Germany (although this was never admitted). As they had been in the Soviet Union, China, Poland, the UK, etc etc etc. From Truman's perspective, it would probably have been incredibly dumb to refuse to drop the bombs. In military terms, it seemed at the time to be an easier way to do what was already being done, but by far cheaper means. In political terms, not using them would at the very least have led to congressional investigations and quite possibly the destruction of his presidency. "What? You guys spent two billion dollars to build a weapon and then refused to use it??!?" The public opinion would have been utter outrage. Remember, this was a time when around 10% of the American people were actually in favour of genocide against the Japanese. Nearly a quarter of Americans polled shortly after the war expressed regret that there hadn't been time to use more atomic weapons. Disgusting, and rather depressing, and perhaps a very sad commentary on human nature, but true.

To reiterate, I am not claiming in any way that it was the right choice to make. However, in the context of the time, it's not difficult to see why he made it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Making more and dropping more would have only made the crime more horrendous. We are talking about killing civilians here--children, the aged, the sick, indiscriminately--or aren't you aware of that?

As opposed to the surgical firebombing of Tokyo where no children, aged or sick died.

The bombs where not that destructive, it was just that one plane did it instead of a whole fleet of them.

If you have problems with the indiscriminate nature of the bombs, well that was true of all bombing by everyone in WWII. The main targets before had been ecconomic, meaning factories, and guess what, when you have an accuracy measured in miles, and target the workers and not just the factory well you get alot of allied policy in WWII.

Focusing on the atomic bombs is just wrong, they where not that special in terms of absolute destruction, or target. Just method.

 

[ponderingturtle]

it mentions nothing of the political pressure to drop the bomb - both from a economic justification of the program expense and from the more pressing desire to limit Russian expansion in Asia. It perpetuates the notion that this was a simple black-white choice -ie either drop the bombs or millions die in a ground invasion. It's quite a long way from a decent historical account.

What choices did the american leadership think it had, that is the issue, not what might have been a possible choice.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

What choices did the american leadership think it had, that is the issue, not what might have been a possible choice.

And that is exactly my point. Hindsight allows one to see other options. At the time, it would have been nearly idiotic for Truman to decide not to drop the bombs. It is only looking back that we see that nuclear weapons are a qualitatively different animal.

 

[Spindrift]

Making more and dropping more would have only made the crime more horrendous. We are talking about killing civilians here--children, the aged, the sick, indiscriminately--or aren't you aware of that?

Where did I say anything about killing civilians and whether or not it was moral or not?

The thread is a hypothetical one about logistics not morality. My main question was how long did it take the US to build another bomb?

 

[progressquest]

IIRC, the US actually made plans for dropping thousands of bats on a Japanese city. The catch is that these bats had small napalm charges attached to them. So, when the bats went to roost during the day, the charges were ignited, and the Japanese structures, susceptible as they were to fire, would burn to the ground. This would, of course, indiscriminately kill most of the occupants of said buildings. They actually tested this on a mock city, and it worked remarkably well.
My point is that the ingenuity of the Americans would almost certainly have created more options than simply a traditional invasion.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

There were many such weird plans. They found it easier to just drop a mixture of incendiaries and high explosive. As I've said, the idea was to kill civilians right from the start. Just as it was the idea for the Germans, Brits, Soviets, etc.

 

[Ove]

While it is possible...some did not WANT surrender.

How realistic is that AUP?

Do you think FDR, Marshall, etc. would have turned down a Japanese surrender? Do you really think they were keen on the casualties in an invasion?

Do you bring it up to make some absurd anti-U.S. insinuation?

Errrrr am i the only one who caught this???? FDR was DEAD at the time and the president was Harry S. Truman..

I too saw the magnificent Canadian Docu/drama/movie about the events that lead up to the dropping of the bomb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113309/ and i truly believe that the USA had no option. Horrible, yes but unavoidable. The bombs gave the Japanese an "excuse" for surrendering, something they badly needed since the "Hawks" in the army would have fought on to the bitter end.

 

[Didaktylos]

Another point that needs to be considered is that even under the threat of further atomic bombardment, the Japanese Cabinet was deadlocked over whether to uncoditionally surrender; the Emperor's personal casting vote had to be employed to break it. Even then, there were some senior officers who were reluctant to join in the surrender; I believe that in at least one case the Emperor's younger brother had to deliver the order to ensure that it would be accepted.