Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

You have made the case there is a moral imperative not to use atomic weapons against a much weaker country we can easily defeat. Japan was done according to the generals. Atomic weapons at that point became a war crime

 

Truman was a Klan member and his racial prejudice may have played a role in his decision. But it was not even his call and Churchill had to sign up to it, if the bomb were to be used against a third country. Churchill gave the green light at Potsdam when he was consulted by Truman and there was no stopping him after that. Under the Quebec Agreement signed in 1943, the USA and UK pledged they would not use it against third parties without each other's consent.

 

Wish I could show you the quotes since I can't I wont fault you for not believing me without the evidence. But I have them from every general and admiral. No one denies them

- - - Updated - - -

Wish I could show you the quotes since I can't I wont fault you for not believing me without the evidence. But I have them from every general and admiral. No one denies them

 

That's 100% false and I quoted the generals actually involved and who would have been the ones directing the invasion. You cited generals who wanted to drop atomic bombs on Tokyo, China and Russia as your proof, which is as absurd as it gets.

Maybe General Jack Ripper from Dr. Strangelove will be your next military expert.

 

Only a person who truly hates the United States would claim that in the war between the USA and Japan, started by Japan, the United States president was the "war criminal." Very despicable, but highly admirable to the Democratic Party chiefs and their zippy pinhead ideology that the USA is the most evil country in the world and all Americans - or at least all white Americans - must be punished for it.

 

No as neither war was of the type that wiping out population centers would be helpful in ending the wars.

 

I have often thought about this. There is no doubt that the Japanese would have used a nuke against the allied forces if they had the technology. Due to the fact that it was the first nuke in warfare to be used, I would have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan to give a warning first and then if they wouldn't surrender within a day or 2, drop it on the cities. More than likely, the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered anyway. From a moral and ethical standpoint written into history, I would have advised the first bomb be dropped off the coast of Japan as a warning. Saudi Arabia and Iran don't need this warning.

 

No, not even on the brink of death - which was very far from being the case. Certainly one of the worst crimes in a century that certainly didn't lack any.

The massacre of the first Americans, the atomic bombing in Japan, as well as the torture practiced at Gitmo are the three main events that prevents the USA from being an exemplary nation, and thus to tell the world what to do.

 

A reasonable comment, by all means, but I still disagree.

The fact that the US used a last-ditch weapon on a practically vanquished enemy gives the moral right to anyone to do the same at the US, and to a lesser degree, to any WWII Ally that condoned such a murderous, gratuitous act of horror.

The US (and allies) still haven't apologized to Japan and the rest of humanity for it neither.

 

I don't see what makes you any different than the guy who decided to use the Death Star on Alderan.

The US waited until the very end of the war to reveal itself the real world threat.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there are some wars where it is?

Wow. Hey, thank you for that "insight", Mr Military Expert.

 

It is a fair point that you make. However, I think you have missed the most important question, that being: Would Japan have use the technology against allied forces? I think the answer is yes, they would have.

In saying this, it is time to move on now, we acknowledge the loss and tragedy that we will never forget, but we all need to forgive and move forward. (I think it was Mandela who was the first to be attributed with this quote, although he may have borrowed it from someone else)

 

Yes, but there's two problems with this:

1) The Japanese didn't have the bomb. They were also very far from getting it.
2) We live by our own standards and ideals - not the Japaneses'. If we accept WWII Japanese, German etc standards instead, might as well declare them de facto winners.

Yes again, but for reconstruction to happen, both sides must make a conscience analysis. I don't think there are, to this day, a majority of Americans who regret this barabarous act. Heck, just look at the results of this poll.

 

The war may have gone on for a few years if they didn't drop the nuke, which would have resulted in the loss of many more American lives.

 

Like someone said, for how many years you guys have been in Afghanistan? Why not "simply" atomize two or three towns and call it a day?

Japan in 1945 was a toothless, clawless dog that was on the brink of either revolution or a Soviet invasion - maybe both. Their allies had all been defeated. They were just posturing. All you guys had to do is wait a few more days, comfortably. No invasion, no bombing, maybe at most a naval blocus + aerial interdiction. They hardly had any hardware left. People were eating rats.

But no; you had to spook the Reds. IMO, that is still the main reason all these hundred thousands women, children and elder civilians were sacrificed.

No offense, Chris, you are an excellent interlocutor, but this subject makes me quite hot under the collar still.

 

"Unnecessary", yet it worked.

 

So saving millions of people (The Japanese civilians were already preparing for an invasion, and they believed in death before dishonor unless the emperor says otherwise) is a horrible thing?

 

Absolutely, yes. The Japanese were sick. They would kill themselves as opposed to surrender. There was nothing to suggest that they would surrender, as much as the revisionists want to say. Maybe the 2nd one wasn't needed so soon. The entire WWII was brutal. An invasion would have resulted in even more deaths. Bombing of cities done by the allies killed more than the A bomb.

I also see another good that came out of it, people seeing the horrors of atomic weapons. Imagine if they were never used, the effect of radiation on people not fully known. Then when they are first used they were even more powerful that that? The results could have been worse.

Thank god the US won the race to atomic weapons

 

Americans don't like to believe they were involved in atrocities like these so they gloss over them. But if we could stand up and admit them we might not do them again. But we will. We have not learned yet

 

I would not have dropped "The Bomb" on populated civilian centers as targeting civilians is regarded as a War Crime (i.e. Dresden incl.).

I think that a demonstration of the Atomic bomb such as dropping it in the ocean, nearby, would have achieved the same effect.

Bombing TWO civilian cities with the A-Bomb was & remains inexcusable.

 

Japan was already beaten. Those bombs were dropped to show the USSR what was up and to avoid further territorial losses to the USSR.

 

Never mind the fact that conventional bombing killed far more people and destroyed far more property.
The only real difference between destroying Hiroshima (or any other Japanese city) with a nuclear weapon or an incendiary raid is the number of planes it takes to do it.

 

"WHO PROVOKED WHOM INTO WW 2"

The myth that you promote

is salient to this debate, so, I hope you will read the article from which I have lifted the following excerpt:

“How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor “

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

EXCERPT “Ask a typical American how the United States got into World War II, and he will almost certainly tell you that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Americans fought back. Ask him why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and he will probably need some time to gather his thoughts. He might say that the Japanese were aggressive militarists who wanted to take over the world, or at least the Asia-Pacific part of it. Ask him what the United States did to provoke the Japanese, and he will probably say that the Americans did nothing: we were just minding our own business when the crazy Japanese, completely without justification, mounted a sneak attack on us, catching us totally by surprise in Hawaii on December 7, 1941.

You can’t blame him much. For more than 60 years such beliefs have constituted the generally accepted view among Americans, the one taught in schools and depicted in movies—what “every schoolboy knows.” Unfortunately, this orthodox view is a tissue of misconceptions. Don’t bother to ask the typical American what U.S. economic warfare had to do with provoking the Japanese to mount their attack, because he won’t know. Indeed, he will have no idea what you are talking about.

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of the burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and east Asia, including Korea and northern China, much as the United States used its growing industrial might to equip armed forces that projected U.S. power into the Caribbean and Latin America, and even as far away as the Philippine Islands....

......Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied." CONTINUED

Roosevelt & his war mongering cronies knew well in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor and were, in fact, relieved that it occurred.

Even the most casual student of history will tell you both that "The Victors write the history" & neither side of any conflict is without innocent blood on its hands.

Thanks

 

I do.
And, you're full of it.
Every economic action taken by the US against Japan was a direct result of Japan's war in China and Korea.
Japan -chose- to react to those actions by going to war to us - they had any number of alternatives.

 

And yet they did surrender. Unconditionally. They did not kill themselves. At that point the bombs had nothing to do with japan.