OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

No its not! That's war! They started it, we finished it.

 

-

Given that after two cities was wiped out by two bombs there was still strong support for going on fighting so just sitting off one on the side of a mountain or offshore or whatever was very very unlikely to end the war by an unconditional surrender.

 

Not according to our military leaders

 

Good answer. You are unqualified to lead as you throw away allies, sacrifice your own and errantly believe a General who wants to drop a bomb to please scientists has a mole in the Japanese War Council.

 

I am not trying to lead. This is a debate. And you have lost it. Lol

 

Hiroshima was a major military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and was the military headquarters in charge of defending the southern half of Japan.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with huge weapons factories.

This surrender was not apparent to the US at the time that the bombs were dropped.

The US preferred to have Japan surrender.

Bombing military targets at the height of the most brutal war in human history? Don't be silly.

 

So our military men was under the opinion that after it was known that the two cities being wiped out barely got the Japanese government to unconditionally surrender that setting a bomb offshore, or on an island or the side of a mountain would had the same results.

If so that would be an amazing opinion indeed that on it face seem not supportable.

 

As Ike himself attests, he failed spectacularly in his attempt to persuade Stimson.

Ike didn't bother to try to convince anyone else. Stimson didn't bother to pass on Ike's views to anyone else.

It was sort of a non-event.

Even if Ike had managed to be convincing, it would have been way too late to stop the bombs. The final orders to drop the bombs had already been sent out to the field and Truman had departed Potsdam. Hiroshima was bombed before Truman's ship arrived back in Washington.

 

Read above. Eisenhower was right

 

Hardly. You pretend that Lemay had a mole in the Japanese war council. He didn't thus had no way of knowing what they would do which makes your entire argument a comic book story.

 

Truman wasn't in charge of A-bomb target selection. And did not feel any need for advice on such.

That is incorrect. Truman had nothing to do with target selection. Stimson was the highest level politician to get involved in the target selection process.

They certainly discussed it, but it was not part of their duty at all. Their job was post-war energy policy.

I've said no such thing. What we did was warn the citizens of both cities to flee because we would be destroying their cities with bombing raids in coming days.

We didn't ask for this war to be inflicted on us.

Then they should have done so instead of waiting until we had nuked them twice.

MacAurthur did not advise against using the bombs. Eisenhower only offered his advice to a single person, and only after it was already too late to stop the use of the bombs.

 

Any history book will be able to attest that the military was not opposed to using the bombs.

I believe the reaction of Admiral Nimitz and a few generals to the bombing of Nagasaki was covered by Maddox's "Weapons for Victory".

 

Their statements on the bomb were quite clear. They were all against it

- - - Updated - - -

Its ok buddy. If you have nothing new you czn go to bed now. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Its ok buddy. If you have nothing new you czn go to bed now. Lol

 

There was no target that was more military than Hiroshima was.

It sure didn't take Japan very long to surrender when they actually decided to do so.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with major weapons factories.

 

We had been dropping leaflets all summer, and then following up by actually destroying the cities that we had leafleted.

The people of Japan knew very very well that the leaflets were not propaganda.

 

Nothing at all. The fact you think that allowing tens of thousands of our allies and POWs to die along with fifty thousand Japanese children each month starving to death and believe there was a mole inside the Japanese war council shows you are somewhat lacking any sense of humanity.

But please, carry on with your fibs to justify you misrepresentation of history, don't let facts stand in your way.

 

The fact I believe is that people did leave both cities. I think that is why the war deaths figures wobbles so much.

 

I stand with the statements of the greatest military minds of the time who were against the bomb. And then we have your opinion. Lol

 

Given that the Japanese government was looking to get the best surrender terms possible by making the cost of pressing on for an unconditional surrender too high in terms of Americans lives for us to continue I do not see how Eisenhower was right.

Yes in a purely military sense they was long ago defeated but as long as the Japanese government was willing to have their population suffer the cost for us to force them to surrender was measure in many hundreds of thousands deaths or showing them that we could wiped them out with small losses using atom weapons.

The used of atom weapons save lives both Americans and Japanese lives in total as one repeat one more firebombs raid over Tokyo to said nothing of facing massive charges of almost unarmed Japanese civilians on the beaches would have cost far more lives.

 

Not according to the generals

 

LOL screw the generals as the facts are that a WW1 former captain of artillery and fail business man by the name of Truman happen to had been proven right not the generals.

 

Nothing was proven right. Drop a couple of atomic weapons on any country and they will surrender. By that standard Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq should all have been nuked. It's a dumb standard

 

You cannot call cherry picked passages, without a shred of context speaking in "plain language".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/hiroshima-obama-explainer/ .....

Tells an ENTIRELY different story from your author.

 

It saved lives!!

Dropping the nukes saved millions of lies.

AA

 

The world was tired of the war and needed it to end. No one was interested in dragging out the war for no reason.

And then there are the countless people who were dying every day as the war dragged on.

- - - Updated - - -

The generals said we should drop the A-bombs and then invade. They didn't say we should wait around and do nothing for no reason.

- - - Updated - - -

No they didn't. Only Ike offered such advice, and he offered it only to a single person, and only when it was too late to change course anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually history makes it very clear what they were and were not briefed on.