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

You're probably correct circumstantially. However, a least a couple of those would fall on the Japanese military in China - close enough to the Russian military to get the hint. China was an ally. China belonged to the Chinese.

 

Actual military tactics of the USA stunk in some regards and we should have followed Churchill's plan to invade Germany out of Greece, cutting of the USSR from Central and Eastern Europe - and preventing the division of Germany.

However, there also was an economic brilliance in the sense that us supplying the UK and Russia, plus some air support of the Chinese in China - while denying entering the war was genius. Had it not been for Pearl Harbor and then Hitler declaring war on us the plan would have been perfect. We were allowing all of the great industrial competitors to literally destroy their manufacturing capabilities and their economies. The USA became fabulously wealthy as a result for the next 3 decades - but increasingly afterwards have been writing hot checks and selling off our industry and economy for cheap imports.

There were 2 winners of WW2. The USA and the USSR. Had we invaded Germany from the South rather than the West there would have been only 1 winner, us.

 

Yeah... all kinds of problems with that.

 

The army is now redundant. Drop the bomb and end the conflict. Quite the foreign policy

 

Truthfully, I had not considered the idea of invading the German Reich from Greece, but it might have worked. Very rough, uneven terrain, but certainly no worse than the problem-plagued Italian campaign that got so hopelessly bogged down even before it reached the Alps.

I agree with your analysis about who the real winners of WWII were. And, I would suggest that in the aftermath of that war, we saw the rise of the central banks throughout the world (Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of England, Bank of Japan), which today have entirely taken over the economies of all important nations except two -- the Russian Federation, and the PRC. The next big military conflict (and there will be one) will be fought over who can project power over the economies of the world....

The good news? We won't need to use nuclear weapons! Instead, the combatants will use thermobaric weapons. Why? All the destruction, BUT, none of radiation!

 

It was definitely a global power play and one that was needed at the time. After all, we basically stole the scientists from Germany to make it happen.

Eisenhower also warned of the MIC. That never really played out.

 

Not a foreign policy whatsoever. Winning and ending the war that had cost tens of millions of lives and was costing tens of thousands more every day.

 

I know. You would win them all in a day. Very efficient.

 

I said "some" not all. The "No Man Left Behind" attitude is post-Vietnam.

This declassified document proves otherwise.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1945-Hull-and-Seaman-Third-Shot.pdf

In the telephone transcript between General Hull and Colonel Seeman, it is Seeman who clearly states:

"The whole program is phased to the best production. There is one of them that is ready to be shipped right now. The order was given Thursday and it should be ready the 19th."

"Thursday would be its readiness; the 19th it would be dropped."

 

The rise of global central banks is somewhat a separate topic than WW2.

The only way I can image a true global nuclear holocaust would be for ideological reasons, specifically the Empire of Islam.

On a more regional level, there are two prospective limited nuclear/atomic exchanges. 1.) A war that goes nuclear between Pakistan and India - they do truly hate each other or 2.) a single atomic bomb (not hydrogen) terror attack against Israel. The death toll per Israeli population could be so high that Israel would likely respond with some of its limited number of aged nuclear weapons.

One of the most dangerous statement in the campaign season was Hilary Clinton stating that the USA would respond to a cyber attack militarily.

Finally, the range of atomic/nuclear weapons in terms of destructive ability is huge. Usage of a tactical nuclear bomb is a very different matter than usage of a city-killing nuclear bomb. For example, Putin threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons if Turkey's military invaded Syrian on a large ground attack scale.

 

Would you have dropped 20 of them if you had them and they never surrendered?

 

That matches the numbers I gave. We did not have one to use immediately. A third one delivered within 2 weeks, maybe a few days earlier, then 3 or so a month afterwards. However, we had convinced the Emperor that we had hundreds to use immediately and were going to exterminate the Japanese people if the Emperor did not immediately surrender after the 2nd bomb, plus convinced him the next one (#3) would be dropped on Tokyo, the Imperial palace. We were playing poker to push the Emperor to surrender IMMEDIATELY to avoid 1.) the Japanese military seizing the Emperor knowing they were willing to fight to the very last life and 2.) before Russia was too deep into China and laying claim to pro-war shared occupation of Japan.

We did not have weeks to wait. Days mattered for how rapidly the situation was deteriorating both in Japan and on the Russian front in China.

 

I already answered that. I would do so rather than an invasion - and if an invasion necessary would clear the landing beaches using atomic bombs - and would also have used them in a way to back off the USSR. If Japan did not surrender when it did then it would be clear that Japan was turning its entire nation into a 70,000,000,000+ people Kamikazi weapons system. I would not expend American lives to save the lives of a suicidal enemy. Japan was still actively fighting in the Pacific, sinking American ships by submarines and Kamikazi aircraft attacks. Russia was invading China and the Chinese were continuing to be slaughtered, as were Allied POWs. I would not sacrifice our people, abandon our Chinese ally and our other allies, nor yielded to Russia, to save Japanese civilians working in Japanese war industries or otherwise to save Japanese lives. I would not have that divided loyalty between our side and that of the enemy as you indicated you would have.

The Japanese opted to put their war industries in cities. We had warned civilians to get out. Any civilian deaths after that point were caused be Japanese, not us. If an enemy uses their own civilians as human shields it is they who killed them, not us. At no time in the history for warfare has it been accepted that an enemy could prevail by using their own people as human shields thereby rendering the opposing side militarily impotent.

 

So you would have committed genocide until your hear the word surrender.. OK

 

You still do not understand the definition of genocide.

 

I am pretty sure it includes wiping out the Japanese. LOL

 

Yah, Churchill advocated going through Greece - but he wouldn't put up the troops - he seemed to think that his main job was to preserve UK personnel, & secondarily Commonwealth personnel. The logistics of amassing the concentration of men, material, POL, arms, ammo, replacements - taxed the Allied staffs to the max as it was (from UK across the English Channel), & the wheels nearly came off there anyway. Also, putting all the fronts on one contiguous axis simplifies the German/Italian defense problem - they could strip men & material from the Western Front & use interior lines of comms to rush them to the East, where all the Allied forces would be lined up.

No, the tactical & strategic conundrum for the Nazis was trying to fight a two-front war - a horror, & something that the German General Staff was adamantly opposed to - while it was possible to offer advice & counsel in good faith.

& of course, if we (UK & US & Commonwealth) were actually going to pinch off the Soviet armies - 100s of them - we'd have to put our own soldiers in. the UK was exhausted, the Commonwealth had some political issues - dating back to WWI? It's not clear that the UK Commonwealth would have responded to make a superhuman effort. The US had estimated that without the USSR, we'd need to raise 350 divisions to defeat Germany & Italy & Japan & their allies.

Instead, we decided to provide economic output - POL, materiel, food, etc. - & raise & train 90 divisions, & slam our production into overdrive to provide the means for self-defense & eventually offense to the Allies. This worked, except that near the end, we had to cannibalize units to allocate replacements. We nor UK nor Commonwealth ever supplied the men nor materiel to replace the USSR armies, nor seal them off from E. Europe - we (& UK) were considerably outnumbered & we never made up the shortfall. By the time the war was over, the USSR & its armies were in place in E. Europe - it would have required a shooting war to get them out, & the US wanted to demobilize & bring the troops home. The UK & Commonwealth forces also wanted to go home & rebuild.

& yes, the US extracted payment or in-kind from our Allies. We needed to keep the wheels turning, & we helped rebuild W. Europe - the Marshall Plan - because it was necessary for our common defense. We also offered help to E. Europe, but they (the USSR) weren't having any.

Churchill wrote nice history (he was a journalist, & enjoyed speaking & writing; & he wrote @ length) - & he edited it so that his actions & the UK's & the Commonwealth's came off in the best light. It's only recently that FDR's thoughts are being researched & published, TMK. The contrast should be interesting. & of course, FDR - like so many managers on both sides of the Atlantic - died in harness.

 

I wouldn't have needed to because I wouldn't have senselessly parked my entire naval fleet in the same harbor in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

 

Our entire navy was not a Pearl Harbor including our most critical - our aircraft carriers - and most of the battleships were soon put back in service. The Japanese did not hit our fuel tanks either nor followed up with an invasion. Overall, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a major tactical failure.

Japan believed we would negotiate a division of the Pacific, cutting in Japan, and agree to end our embargo. They had no clue of the emotions involved and only looked at it as a comparison of military numbers. They had more battleships left, so figured we would have not choice but to bargain with them. That was very foolish thinking on their part, but they were looking at it thru their perspective, not ours. To them, it was like a game of Risk rather than reality overall.

 

The only reason the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor failed is because they didn't know we had built an Atomic bomb, much less two. However they also did not know that we did not have a third bomb at the time and by the time the second bomb was dropped they lost the courage to gamble. The Germans and the Russians were still in the process of developing an Atomic bomb. Prior to the Japanese attacked the US was not at war with Japan. We were just a nuisance (running supply-lines to our allies). But the bigger failure was not the attack on Pearl Harbor, instead it was rather the degree of intelligence about our nuclear program and the ultimate decision to submit after the second bomb was dropped.

But here's my question to the post; if the shoe were on the other foot, and Japan (or anyone else) had nuked your Nation into submission would you become their ally? Today the Japanese want the US to step back an allow them to maintain their own independent defense again, but as much as that would cut our Defense budget it would cost us in trade deals that we heavily rely on. And the first thing the Japanese would do if they had full control of their own defense again would be to reenter North Korea (and probably China if it came down to it). And if the Japs did that the Russians would come back in and we would have WWIII.

Meanwhile the current cost of maintaining the nuclear arsenal that we have and vow to never use (which is still growing thanks to both Obama and now Trump) is around $2.19 million every hour.

 

I am not aware of a US "vow to never use" nuclear weapons. Do you have a source?

 

Do I have a source? That's the meme every time they get a microphone and camera shoved in their face to discuss the subject. Of course we all know that's not the official policy, but it is the claim they constantly make to the public.

 

Rough, rugged, defensible, terrain, LONG supply lines lots of over water from a relatively undeveloped base, loss of proximity to the air forces engages in the strategic bombing fer Germany, much closer proximity to the bulk of German forces, loss of the 2-front advantage (in effect, invading the Balkans extends and connects the Russian and Mediterranean front), exterior lines, no direct land threat to German industry, etc.

And these are just the things I thought of when I first heard of the idea 40+ years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

Or war.

 

A President who says we will never use nuclear weapons should be investigated for treason.

 

I was stationed for a while in Japan during the VN War. I walked those beaches and stone cliffs. I crawled into the abandoned gun emplacements. The invasion of Japan would have been a blood bath! Millions would have died on both sides. The collective rage would have been much more intense than it already was. Dropping those two bombs saved a lot of lives.