OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

An these military leaders was experts on the thinking of the Japanese war cabinet more so the rest of the US government?

I know that high level military leaders are routinely given some briefings on their enemies political governments but why would that grant them greater understating then the rest of our government leadership?

Unlike Japan during the war our leaders was not our military and with japan we are not talking about rational people that from a sane military standpoint should had surrender months before the two atom bombings.

 

Did you see the names and the quotes on the list? All of the joint chiefs are there except one.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes the military likely knew more about the japanese high command than any other group

 

Nonsense in my opinion as their training was in military matters mainly not understanding the thinking of a very foreign culture and people.

 

Nonsense. There was likely no group more trained in japanese culture and the people than military intelligence.

 

Wrong. The sanctions of Iraq and the subsequent blockade was a politicaldecision only enforced by the military.

Please stop sidestepping the question and tell us how long you would be willing to watch Jaanese civillians die of starvation with your politicaldecision to employ a blockade.

 

Military intelligence deal with military matters and capabilities not the thinking of a government that is not even rational and under great pressure.

That is why the state department is not under the war department for example.

 

I have answered the question many times. You do not like the answer. As long as the generals recommended. According to our military leaders that would likely not be a very long time. They said the war was essentially over already

- - - Updated - - -

The state department are diplomats. Military intelligence examines every possible aspect of the enemy

 

Allow me to explain how you are unknowingly misrepresenting the meaning of most of those quotes. The paper that you referenced has as its tagline the following quote

"In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity."

In a nutshell that is the entire thesis of that paper. The problem is that not being dictated by "military necessity", does not mean that it wasn't in our best interest to do so, or even that the person making that statement believes it was a mistake. There are a few quotes in there stating we shouldn't have done it, but the majority are speaking to the actual legal term "military necessity", which in this context means that an attack is on a military target. When they say it wasn't a military necessity, they mean it wasn't a military target. While there may have been a few munitions factories and the like, nobody has ever claimed those bombings were for the express purpose of stopping their ability to make war. In that sense, yes of course they weren't a "military necessity".

Everyone knows the purpose of those bombs was to scare them into submission, and of course that tactic worked. The other alternative was a mainland invasion which by all accounts was projected to cost many tens of thousands of American lives, and significantly more than that in terms of Japanese life. From that perspective, they were an unmitigated success both in ending the war AND in minimizing the overall loss of life. Just because you find a bunch of out of context quotes from military leaders answering a legal question about a legal term, does not mean that all of those quotes came from people that opposed using a nuclear weapon in that circumstance.

 

Nope. They almost to a man said the bomb was unecessary and that the war was essentially over. They are united in that belief. Most did not use the term "military necessity". They spoke in their own words and said we didn't need to drop the bomb and that the war was over without it.

 

Sorry they are focus not on what a possible enemy is likely to do but what the possible enemy have the capabilities of doing.


It is up to the state department with input of such agencies as the CIA[take note that the CIA is not part of military intelligence] to judge the likely actions of an enemy.

Now with Japan it did not take generals to know that the war was over and the only rational thing remaining for them to do was surrender that does not mean however they would do the rational actions.

 

Well seeing as how the generals never recommended it I suppose it would be totally up to the politician. The generals do not make policy and a blocade is a political decision not a military one.

An example - Iraq. Completely political decision from start to finish and, it would be the same for Japan if, Truman decided to go that route.

He did not and what's more, no General offered his official opinion on when to end the blockade as it was not his place to do so

Anyother thing, all your generals in your quotes state Japan was ready to surrender. They were not, even after the bombing of Hiroshima as we know now which sort of makes their mistaken view worthless. And yes, us, with the benifit of knowing the details of the secrrt meetings of the Big Six know more than those generals who said Japan was ready to surrender so, their opinions are nice but wrong.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. Having spent ten years on active duty I have a little perspective on how BIG the military is. They have experts in everything. I'm quite sure even then they had experts on every aspect of japanese culture and had extensive files on every japanese leader. They likely knew what they had for breakfast.

 

You are misrepresenting/ misunderstanding what they said. It was essentially over from a military tactical standpoint, and that is what they are saying. Nobody disputes that notion. A mainland invasion was still necessary, and while the end result of that invasion was not in doubt, that invasion would have cost many tens of thousands of American lives, and nobody disputes THAT notion. You ( or the paper) are taking quotes out of context, and misrepresenting the meaning of what the majority of those people quoted were saying. If one were to take your paper at face value, they would walk away with the impression that Truman totally disregarded the advice of the military establishment, and that simply is NOT the case. The war weary military establishment was ECSTATIC to end hostilities without shedding one more drop of American blood. 60 million people were killed in WW2, with most of them being civilians. Nobody was gnashing their teeth about 150k more from a nation that attacked us, and were still killing our soldiers when Fat Boy was deployed.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I gave you an example of an admiral that suggested very clearly a demonstration of the bomb. You just simply have no evidence that the ONLY way to get Japan to surrender unconditionally is to use those bombs on a city. There is a great deal of evidence that the war was essentially over and they were looking for any excuse to give to the japanese people that unconditional surrender is the only option. A demonstration would have served that purpose....but you feel very strongly that it needed to include the deaths of thousands of women and children. I disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Read the quotes. I am not misrepresenting anything. Those are there own words. If it was one or two generals maybe you could have a point. But the consensus is overwhelming. An invasion was not needed.

 

Whether it is the book you are quoting or it is you is fairly irrelevant. You are arguing the points of the book so in that sense you are one and the same. "Not needed" is a very broad term. Could we have won without nuclear weapons ?.....absolutely, and when someone says it wasn't needed, that is what they are trying to convey. Did it save many tens of thousands of American lives even though we could have won without a nuclear weapon ?......absolutely. While it wasn't a necessity in order to win, it was a damned nice luxury to be able to end it without losing tens of thousands more American lives and undoubtedly countless more Japanese lives. Just because someone says that we didn't need it, doesn't mean they are saying we shouldn't have used it. You (or the book) are improperly conflating the two.

So you showed an admiral that suggested a demonstration of the bomb. So what ? I have no doubt that tactic was undoubtedly bandied about. Of course that was a consideration. Just because you show a quote from someone that suggested it is only showing the obvious which is of course that tactic was debated. It sort of seems to me however in hindsight, that since Hiroshima did not result in a surrender, I find it hard to rationalize that a demonstration over the ocean would have done so.

 

I doubt that.Our intelligence on Japan was fairly thin, and our military had not become the bureaucratic hive that it is today.

 

Lets be clear....it was three days between hiroshima and nagasaki. Not near enough time for them to surrender. Who would it hurt on our side to wait a week or two and let surrender talks continue?

 

There is a wide range of opinion represented in that link. You are trying to conflate them into one opinion and that simply is not an accurate reflection of what is revealed in that link. I realize the author of that book did this in order to skew reality toward HIS opinion. A few people were outright against its use. Most of those quotes however are referring to the legal term of "military necessity", which does not mean what you think it means. The author, and you, are exploiting the ambiguity of that term and concept in order to misrepresent that there is a homogeneity of opinion expressed from those quotes that is aligned against using a nuke on Japan, and there is not.

This is a really fringe opinion you are trying to pass off as mainstream, and regardless of how cleverly the author tries to present that fringe opinion, it still remains a fringe opinion. The military establishment was ECSTATIC that the war was ended without shedding another drop of American blood.

 

There really is NOT a wide range of opinion expressed in those quotes. Do you see any in favor of dropping the bomb? Can you find me any quotes from military leaders in favor of dropping the bomb. I would be happy to see them.

 

At the time I wrote this it was a 63 page thread. Anyway that would drag the war even further. In the mean time Japanese survivors for the occupied islands would be taking pot shots at our soldiers.

 

Frankly, I don't find that any more credible than the claims that Iraq was developing unmanned drones that cou'd drop nukes on the US. But right wing media and Fox passed on nonsense like this all during the spring of 2003.

 

And I explained why a demonstration was a crap shoot that would more than likely be downplayed by the Japanese leadership thus ensuring years of stalemate with blockade while Russian and Chinese allies were being killed by tens of thousands a mo th not to mention another fifty thousand Japanese dying of starvation a disease.

Yes take your time, only looking at fifty thousand people dying each month while waiting for the unaffected Japanese leadership to surrender.

 

Again I don't see why a non announced demonstration over uninhabited ground is more of a crapshoot than a demonstration over a city full of women and children. I await your evidence on the 50,000 a month dying though I doubt it would have even taken a month based on the statements by our greatest military minds.