Why was the atomic bombing of Japan not necessary?

[Free Moral Agent]

I've always known that the reason the U.S. bombed Nagasaki was because even after they had been bombed Hiroshima, the emperor had declined to surrender. How is it that I've heard at 2:30...

YouTube - SA@TAC - Terrorism, Liberal and Conservative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVztmtQX104&feature=player_embedded)

If you're not willing to surrender even after the use of the greatest weapon of warfare, how can you be ready to surrender prior to its use? And yes they were given an opportunity, see Postdam Declaration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration)

[Keller1967]

It wasn't necessary because Japan's emperor saying "I surrender" wouldn't have changed that we just sent all of their aircraft carriers to the bottom of the pacific.

The US already won the war and then used terrorist tactics to get a complete surrender.

[squarepusher]

as an expert in Japanese animation, i wholeheartedly say no

[AuH20]

There was a near coup by the military that was thwarted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident


The Kyūjō Incident (宮城事件, Kyūjō Jiken?) was an attempted military coup d'état in Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night of 14 August 1945 – 15 August 1945, just prior to announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. The attempted coup was put into effect by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and by many from the Imperial Guard of Japan in order to stop the move to surrender.

The officers, in an attempt to block the decision to surrender to the Allies, killed Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division and attempted to counterfeit an order to the effect of occupying the Tokyo Imperial Palace. They attempted to place the Emperor under house-arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army (Japan) and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they ultimately committed suicide in traditional Japanese form. As a result, the communique of the intent for a Japanese surrender continued as planned.

While I frown up the demolition of Nagasaki, you have to be extremely naive to think that the fiercely honor bound Japanese would have just let the American forces stroll onto their islands without incredible resistance.

[Promontorium]

Ok, so we sank all their ships. Then we go home?

What are they doing in the mean time? Rebuilding their empire? Rebuilding their military? Giving haven to Germans, and using the German's technology to build atomic bombs too?

Nahh, they'd just stop if we did.

It was our fault they invaded China. Sorry Japan, our bad. We forced you to take over half the Pacific. You guys didn't want to do it.

>:S

[surf]

the terms of surrender demanded at Potsdam were significantly less than those accepted following the bombings. in fact, many have argued that the Japanese would have surrendered under the terms they had agreed to if these had been offered previous to dropping the atomic bombs.

[AuH20]

Ok, so we sank all their ships. Then we go home?

What are they doing in the mean time? Rebuilding their empire? Rebuilding their military? Giving haven to Germans, and using the German's technology to build atomic bombs too?

Nahh, they'd just stop if we did.

It was our fault they invaded China. Sorry Japan, our bad. We forced you to take over half the Pacific. You guys didn't want to do it.

>:S

The war should have never escalated to that point (reference FDR - Tojo Doctrine). But I agree. You finish the damn thing after exhausting countless lives, dollars and resources. Secondly, why apply moral standards to an act which purely immoral? War is hell and should be avoided at all costs, but at the same time, I understand the burdensome choice Truman made.

[dannno]

Define: Surrender

[Quinn Rogness]

I think the bombing was necessary, it outweighed the cost of losing millions on an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

[..PAUL4PRES..]

I think the bombing was necessary, it outweighed the cost of losing millions on an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

SA is awesome!

[Keller1967]

Ok, so we sank all their ships. Then we go home?

What are they doing in the mean time? Rebuilding their empire? Rebuilding their military? Giving haven to Germans, and using the German's technology to build atomic bombs too?

Nahh, they'd just stop if we did.

It was our fault they invaded China. Sorry Japan, our bad. We forced you to take over half the Pacific. You guys didn't want to do it.

>:S

I would rather go home than kill their women and children wholesale. They had no Navy, we could have easily blockaded them to prevent them from building another one.

[Quinn Rogness]

SA is awesome!

SA?

[..PAUL4PRES..]

SA?

Southern Avenger

[TinCanToNA]

I would rather go home than kill their women and children wholesale. They had no Navy, we could have easily blockaded them to prevent them from building another one.

What's the difference between steel used to build farm equipment and steel used to build armaments? None.

Yes, decades of economic sanction and isolation have done wonders after WW2. See such happy places as DPRK, Burma, Iraq, etc.

There is no easy answer. It was the most destructive war in history. Ending it at almost any cost can be easily argued as justified.

[A. Havnes]

I was getting ready to stick my head into the hornet's nest, but then I thought, "I don't have to! There was a huge thread on this once upon a time!" So, I dug it up out of the hot topics subforum in the off-topic subforum and am posting it here. Read through all of it before you come to your conclusion, and even revive it if you want. The point is that this has been discussed at great length.

Check it out here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197564

[slothman]

I made a large post a few years back about why it was needed.
I won't repost it here though unless it is asked and I can find it.

Also, the title of the thread was loaded.
It assumes it was not necessary and asks why rather than asking if it was in fact necessary.

[AmericaFyeah92]

The Japs refused to surrender initially because they were under the impression we would hang the Emperor. They said if guaranteed the Emperor's safety a surrender would be accepted, and Truman and Co. replied "FUCK YOU" even though we had no intention of deposing the Emperor.

[zade]

It was not necessary, it was a disgusting terrorist attack on civilians

[erowe1]

I think the bombing was necessary, it outweighed the cost of losing millions on an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

What's wrong with doing neither?

[jmdrake]

What's the difference between steel used to build farm equipment and steel used to build armaments? None.

Yes, decades of economic sanction and isolation have done wonders after WW2. See such happy places as DPRK, Burma, Iraq, etc.

There is no easy answer. It was the most destructive war in history. Ending it at almost any cost can be easily argued as justified.

And they would have fueled these new mythical armaments with....? Remember the reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place was that we were cutting off their oil supply. Besides it takes a lot more steel to built an aircraft carrier than it does to build a tractor. (I doubt Japan would be able to build sufficient tractors without imported steel for that matter.)

[AmericaFyeah92]

everyone is ignoring WHY the Japs didn't surrender. The Emperor's safety was the main issue.

[sofia]

Dear Emperor,

Your soldiers are very brave fighters. It has become apparent that defeating them and imposing unconditional surrender upon your people will cost us many casualties.

So, in an effort to spare the lives of our soldiers, we intend to incinerate hundreds of thousands of your defenseless women, children, and elderly until you surrender.

Yours truly

Harry S Truman.



Fuck that....this is one thing that I agreee with Jeremiah Wright about.

[AuH20]

everyone is ignoring WHY the Japs didn't surrender. The Emperor's safety was the main issue.

They should have thought about that before the Bataan Death March (disgusting war crime on par with our dropping of these bombs) and the battle of Iwo Jima. Anyone who wants to play monday morning quarterback with the war in Pacific is really barking up the wrong tree. Operations Olympic and Coronet would have cost the U.S. in excess of a half a million servicemen.

[AmericaFyeah92]

^Way to not respond to any of the arguments that have been made and continue to spout the same old propaganda.

"THEY (who is they? The Imperial Army? The Emperor? The average citizens?) brutalized OUR soldiers, so WE (again, who? Truman, the Army? You and me?) were justified in frying hundreds of thousands of civilians who had nothing to do with the brutality (the proper way to punish war criminals is to commit war crimes yourself, basically)"

[AuH20]

^Way to not respond to any of the arguments that have been made and continue to spout the same old propaganda.

"THEY (who is they? The Imperial Army? The Emperor? The average citizens?) brutalized OUR soldiers, so WE (again, who? Truman, the Army? You and me?) were justified in frying hundreds of thousands of civilians who had nothing to do with the brutality (the proper way to punish war criminals is to commit war crimes yourself, basically)"

There is no propaganda. The japanese were extremely brutal in their treatment of our soldiers. The Bataan Death March was an abomination, with routine beheadings and the like.

Secondly, how else would you cajole the Japanese into surrendering, when they made it abundantly clear in their beliefs, that history was on their side and it was destiny that their homeland would never be conquered? You don't just sign the death warrants for over a half-a-million servicemen and wish them good luck against the entire populace of Japan.

[AmericaFyeah92]

There is no propaganda. The japanese were extremely brutal in their treatment of our soldiers. The Bataan Death March was an abomination, with routine beheadings and the like.

Secondly, how else would you cajole the Japanese into surrendering, when they made it abundantly clear in their beliefs, that history was on their side and it was destiny that their homeland would never be conquered? You don't just sign the death warrants for over a half-a-million servicemen and wish them good luck against the entire populace of Japan.

instead you sign the death warrants of hundreds of thousand of noncombatant men, women, and children.
The propaganda I pointed out had nothing to do with your claims about the death march, which was as despicable as you say.

This whole B.S. about how "Japanese would never surrender!" ignores the fact that they did, indeed, surrender. It also ignores their main motivation in the later stage of the war, which was the Emperor's personal safety.

If we had just sent a message "Given your surrender the Imperial line will not be molested," an invasion or a nuking would be unnecessary. You're still not responding to the other side.

[AuH20]

instead you sign the death warrants of hundreds of thousand of noncombatant men, women, and children.
The propaganda I pointed out had nothing to do with your claims about the death march, which was as despicable as you say.

This whole B.S. about how "Japanese would never surrender!" ignores the fact that they did, indeed, surrender. It also ignores their main motivation in the later stage of the war, which was the Emperor's personal safety.

If we had just sent a message "Given your surrender the Imperial line will not be molested," an invasion or a nuking would be unnecessary. You're still not responding to the other side.

But why let the Japanese dictate the terms of their surrender? That would be odd, considering they lost all leverage. Maybe if they had their wits about them, they would have negotiated a much more favorable deal after Midway, in which the imperial structure would be retained. It's sad that the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had to suffer for the delusions of their leaders. They continually pushed the envelope to the inevitable stage and brought the bombs into play. These innocent people trusted their lives with the emperor and his military advisers and in turn they failed the people miserably.

[talkingpointes]

But why let the Japanese dictate the terms of their surrender? That would be odd, considering they lost all leverage. Maybe if they had their wits about them, they would have negotiated a much more favorable deal after Midway. It's sad that the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had to suffer for the delusions of their leaders. They continually pushed the envelope to the inevitable stage and brought the bombs into play.

You are right about that, but I can't really ever see a reason for the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities, sorry I just can't. As for them being "Honor Bound" and not going to surrender that is hilarious. Have you ever seen the speech given to soldiers on D-Day by Gen. Patton, as Americans we had the same passion for the war.

Fast forward to today and we still are "honor bound" remember Huckabee's arguements in the 08' debates about living with "honor". The winners write history, there is no way Japan would of kept fighting they would of lost everything and still did anyways...

[AuH20]

You are right about that, but I can't really ever see a reason for the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities, sorry I just can't. As for them being "Honor Bound" and not going to surrender that is hilarious. Have you ever seen the speech given to soldiers on D-Day by Gen. Patton, as Americans we had the same passion for the war.

Fast forward to today and we still are "honor bound" remember Huckabee's arguements in the 08' debates about living with "honor". The winners write history, there is no way Japan would of kept fighting they would of lost everything and still did anyways...

But by the same token, we did not employ knights of the divine wind to dive Mitsubishi Zeroes into U.S. naval vessels. Their devotion to honor and the code of the Bushido was on another level. I do agree with you that the second bombing 3 days later was unnecessary.

[winston_blade]

Killing civilians is always necessary, haven't you heard?

[talkingpointes]

But by the same token, we did not employ knights of the divine wind to dive Mitsubishi Zeroes into U.S. naval vessels. Their devotion to honor and the code of the Bushido was on another level. I do agree with you that the second bombing 3 days later was unnecessary.

Really so you think sending soldiers to run up to the beaches of Normandy didn't require the same blind devotion ? They literally had paper houses, dropping a nuclear bomb on the cities was more of a display for the rest of the world. I do not follow and cannot follow wholesale murder and disagree. It reminds me of how bullies work, when they know they can over power someone anyway, the beat them up with complete disregard. Which I would guess they do this just to show others how tough the are. I agree with defending ourselves and fighting them back to their island, but that should of been it, you don't bomb and murder civilians. That is barbaric and we here routinely speak out against such things, and using hypotheticals that they wouldn't surrender just sounds ridiculous. The Japanese might of been on "honor bound" but I don't take them to be morons.

Japan was done, and either way there were going to run out of resources - then what fight us with sticks and stones from across the pond.

[jmdrake]

It's interesting that people want to defer to the generals....except for when the generals say it's not necessary to bomb the hell out of people. Does anybody here really think that Eisenhower and MacArthur didn't know about the Bataan death march? And what would have been wrong with waiting a month or two in order to see what would happen? Either the Japanese were about to surrender or they weren't. Had we held off long enough to see then no harm would have been done. It's not like an atomic bomb has a short expiration date. And so what if they wanted to condition surrender on the safety of the emperor? We ended up not killing him anyway.

[AmericaFyeah92]

And so what if they wanted to condition surrender on the safety of the emperor? We ended up not killing him anyway.

Exactly. That's the tragedy, that the root cause of the whole thing wasn't even an issue to us. If we had been dead-set on hanging Hirohito it would have made more sense.

[AmericaFyeah92]

But why let the Japanese dictate the terms of their surrender? That would be odd, considering they lost all leverage.

Because we had no intention of removing Hirohito anyway, so it would have been no loss.