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

Probably felt like this:

 

Probably fewer women.

 

In WWII? The Norden bombsight was an excellent device - but Japan was/is notorious for high winds in different directions @ different altitudes. Cloud cover - the primary was socked in - is what caused the diversion to the secondary. & @ that, the plane was nearly @ bingo fuel. They barely caught sight of a usable reference - the bridge on the river? & that glimpse was sufficient to drop by.

In training, with experienced well-trained crews & good weather, without flak nor interceptors, etc. - the Norden did very well. In the ETO, it was a different story. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bombing

"For the U.S. Army Air Forces, daylight bombing was normal based upon box formations for defence from fighters. Bombing was coordinated through a lead aircraft but although still nominally precision bombing (as opposed to the area bombing carried out by RAF Bomber Command) the result of bombing from high level was still spread over an area. Before the war on practice ranges, some USAAF crews were able to produce very accurate results, but over Europe with weather and German fighters and anti-aircraft guns and the limited training for new crews this level of accuracy was impossible to reproduce. The US defined the target area as being a 1,000 ft (300 m) radius circle around the target point - for the majority of USAAF attacks only about 20% of the bombs dropped struck in this area. The U.S. daytime bombing raids were more effective in reducing German defences by engaging the German Luftwaffe than destruction of the means of aircraft production.

"In the summer of 1944, forty-seven B-29's raided Japan's Yawata Steel Works from bases in China; only one plane actually hit the target area, and only with one of its bombs. This single 500 lb (230 kg) general purpose bomb represented one quarter of one percent of the 376 bombs dropped over Yawata on that mission. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 percent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 x 500 ft (150 m) German power-generation plant."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

We - the US - can't really claim precision bombing until Vietnam, & those were expensive rounds, typically for critical bridges or tunnels, & similar traffic chokepoints.

 

Yes. This is what I meant.

 

Or they could have waited 2 weeks according to the military experts

 

No, that is false too.

 

Not according to the military experts out of their own mouths

 

No, that is false. It also is not decisive.

I wonder what the military experts of German and Japan said about going to war? Your military experts promised we were winning in Vietnam, that aircraft carriers were worthless, and that the Chinese military would never involve in the Korean war. Your "experts" wanted to initiate a first strike nuclear attack against Russia over Berlin and to drop atom bombs on China. Your experts said that firebombing German and Japanese cities would force both to surrender.

Obviously by your messages you support a military takeover of the government.

 

You continue to derail. I posted the exact quotes. You are flat out wrong

 

Okay first of all we're talking about the land of the Samurai (true patriots willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect the sovereignty of their Nation), a Shinto nation. We preach it every day to all of our service personnel, but when it comes down to it we pretend it should never actually "come down to it." And I'd like to believe here in the US with our 2nd Amendment that we could expect our civilian population to stand up and do the very same thing the civilian population of Japan was willing to do (just give everyone five years of ammunition, rations, and medical relief) but hell US citizen struggle to get proper medical care even in Peace-time. It would be "every man, woman, and child for themselves here in the US.

But lets get back to the underlying question: There are two major views on warfare with a lot of grey in between, Mass destruction vs tactical strike. Now I understand technology over the years has come a long way (our air superiority was maintained by steal kites with lawnmower engines) but after WWII the UN was formed and everyone agreed that the days weapons of mass destruction needed to be put to bed (chemical, biological, atomic, thermonuclear, exc...) Most nations agreed and signed. Some with exceptions, but only a small handful refused to sign (one being a current ally of the US that calls itself Israel). Now I'm not suggestion that my position is based on the current laws (treaties and agreements) are in place, I'm saying I agree that the purpose of those current laws are moral and just regardless of if they are in place and recognized or not.

In Vietnam we were still using cluster bombs and chemical weapons, but on the ground our most powerful tool was the sniper. However in a complete military the most important branch is the Navy, then the Air Force, and lastly ground Forces. We never needed weapons grade material, we only needed fuel grade material to get off diesel power for our Navy. And we finally got there with the Ohio class and Las Angeles class submarines. If we'd had those in WWII the German U-boats wouldn't have stood a chance. And the Japanese mainland would have never needed to be targeted because we could have annihilated their Navy and destroyed their fisheries.

As far as dealing with Japan on the ground we should have pushed them out of China straight back through Korea. We wouldn't even have a North Korea today if we'd done that, and we'd probably be allied with all of Korea, China, and Russia today, avoiding both the Korean war and the Cold War.

And hell, lets talk about Cuba while we're on the topic of small islands. It's right off the Florida coast, now we were never in a direct war with Cuba (despite the CIA's persistence) but it's a 3rd World nation with basically no defense and it stood it's ground to US bullying right up until last year when Obama surrendered to them. And our conflict with Cuba didn't start with Russia and the Cold War (that was a bi-product), our issue with Cuba was over trade (most US citizens don't even know that).

So in summary, I support tactical strikes over mass destruction because mass destruction creates sympathizers for the innocent victims (i.e. civilians, patriots or not).

 

No, your message is false and pointing out the histories of your so-called can-never-be-questioned experts is 100% relevant.

You refuse to explain why you care about the Japanese but not the Chinese.

 

This thread is not about the Japanese. You continue to try to derail this thread because its all you have. Your argument fails so you just move the goalpost. Its actually just sad.

 

Now you claim that Chinese lives in WW2 are 100% irrelevant as if their being slaughtered by the Japanese is nothing, while sobbing that we used the atomic bomb to end the slaughter of Chinese by the Japanese. In this thread you have made it clear that you would be fine with the Japanese killing as many thousands or millions of more people and stopping them from doing so would be "irrelevant" as only Japanese lives matter to you. This is a necessary stance for you to take to promote your hatred and contempt of the USA in your messages on this topic, isn't it?

 

Listen I understand that you hate the Japanese and want them all to die. That you would have dropped 20 atomic bombs if you had them. I have advocated waiting a couple of weeks instead of dropping two atomic bombs. A position held by almost all the military experts of the day. But somehow you think your opinion and that of a few politicians should carry the day. That is flat out wrong

 

No, that is false. It is not true that "almost all military experts of the day" urged "waiting 2 weeks." Who I cited was not "a few politicians," but the head of the US Army assigned to figure how to actually defeat the Japanese and I cited the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (meaning the HIGHEST ranking commander of each branch of the military) of what the cost in human lives would be.

In addition, in terms of the lay person debate on this (which is what this thread is) the majority of Americans - then and now - agree that we should have dropped the atom bomb. Do you want to see polling on that since you know I am accurate that mine is the majority of popular opinion in the USA?

 

Now you are just flat out lying. The only military leader you can quote is Marshall. Now we are voting on military atrocities? Oh my god this is beyond the pale.

 

Since we were already firebombing Japanese cities causing massive levels of death, the debate isn't even really about "killing Japanese from the air." We were massively killing Japanese from the air, had been for some time and Japan refused our offers of surrender despite it clear they could not win. The only real question is of killing Japanese with atom bombs than burning them to death with massive waves of firebombs.

To this ends, dropping the atom bombs was correct because actual results prove it was correct:
1. After the 2nd atomic bomb the Emperor knew we could make them so he surrenders, specifically stating he was surrendering because of the atom bombs. Not Japanese deaths. Not cities being destroyed as by the firebombing. Not that Japan couldn't win the war. Not that terms of surrender had been agreed up. Rather, he specifically said THE reason was the atom bomb. The warring - all over the world - immediately stopped. This fact is proof that the entire logic of using the atom bombs was proven correct.

2. There has been no world war, no major war and no war between any major powers ever since - literally for over 7 decades. I doubt any period or world history could be found with a 70 year period of no major war going on anywhere in the world.

3. Overall the numbers of deaths in the world from wars in percentage to world population continues to decline.

Simply put, those 2 atom bomb didn't kill any more than our firebombing and the ongoing war was causing. Rather, they promptly ended the war and war deaths all over the world as hoped - and has been preventing wars ever since. Proof is in the successful results. The counter point is just a muddled collection of what-if speculations of almost every possible alternative scenario with horrific potential massively greater lose of life and leading to future major wars.

 

No, no atrocity that wasn't already happening in bombings, firebombings and slaughtering people on all sides.

So not you not only want the military, not civilian elected government, to run the country but also want to eliminate democracy too?

By 1945 the precision bombing of Japan had proved frustrating. "This outfit has been getting a lot of publicity without having really accomplished a hell of a lot in bombing results," Major General Curtis LeMay groused on March 6. So he loaded more than 300 B-29 Superfortress bombers with napalm incendiaries and, on the evening of March 9, ordered them emptied over central Tokyo. LeMay made no attempt to focus on military targets, nor could he have done so with napalm, whose effect that windy night was to burn wooden Japanese dwellings with spectacular efficiency. The victims were "scorched and boiled and baked to death," LeMay later said. Over the next few months the United States dealt with more than sixty smaller Japanese cities in like fashion.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/firebombs-over-tokyo/302547/


So let's not even pretend the complaint is about lose of Japanese lives by bombing cities.

 

As for your "experts," MacArthur wanted to drop 50 atom bombs on Korea and China.
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/NorthKorea-A-Bomb/US-Planned-To-A-Bomb-N-Korea-In-1950-War_02.html

Obviously you think we should have since your "military experts" must NEVER be questioned. So don't pretend you are against using atomic bombs, just not against the Japanese to end WW2.

 

Additionally...

It is only that LeMay, the man who bombed 60 Japanese cities with mass firebombs and Tokyo who claimed the war would be over in 2 weeks - not all your "experts." He believed Japan would surrender if we just kept destroying Japanese civilians in dozens of more cities by burning them all the death. It has nothing to do with avoiding "atrocities" or killing Japanese civilians.

Nimitz said it would not be over for months. How many Chinese, Americans, Allies, POWs, Russians and Japanese would have died over the next "months?" Japan had nearly a million troops in China - killing Chinese by the MILLIONS, plus mass rape, torture and destruction. POWs were dying. American ships still being sunk. MONTHS more of DEATH - including total destruction of Japanese cities by mass firebombings. The "expert" Nimitz's prediction of what would happen without the atomic bombs.

 

He did not want to bomb Japan which is the point of this thread. This thread is not about if the bomb should ever be used.....it is about if it should have been used on Japan. You just continue with your derailing

 

Keep talking. The experts said we did not need the bomb. But then we have your opinion. It is laughable

 

precision bombing of Japan wasn't realistic. All the cities, ports, military bases, airports, comms & etc. were & are still mingled on the Japanese shore or the plains adjacent - the only place available to put them. Any attack on Japan's industry or military would entail attacking the very mixed-use coastal areas, that include military, industry, home workshops, living space, schools, hospitals & so on. Imperial Japan was certainly aware of this, & fire was always urban Japan's greatest fear - they built mostly in wood, fabric & paper, to avoid disasters in the frequent earthquakes. & to facilitate rebuilding. But their materials were very flammable.

LeMay certainly galvanized the B-29 firebombing - he stripped guns, crew (gunners), ordered the bombers to fly lower (saving fuel & improving massing of bombing, & target saturation), stripped all non-essential gear. They also mixed in incendiaries & some small fraction of explosives. They worked up tactics (fleets of bombers, dropping incendiaries, attacking simultaneously) to cause fire storms.

By March of 1945, there were very few untouched bombing targets in Japan - & the handful left were specifically earmarked as potential atomic bomb targets - to facilitate the before & after damage assessments. All of this information is available in the general encyclopedia articles. More detail is in specialist books & articles, if you want it.

 

For you to claim presenting YOUR "experts" opinions on using atomic bombs that you claim are your proof is irrelevant to this topic is absurd. YOU are who has described using atomic weapons as atrocities and NOT just on the Japanese. OR are you now claiming the Japanese we were at war with are the ONLY people we couldn't drop atomic bombs on? Pick one and try to stick to it.

MacArthur was an idiot, not an expert. He was insistent that there was no way China would enter the Korean war as his EXPERT opinion, just like his EXPERT opinion that Japan was going to surrender anyway. He was 100% WRONG is calculating actions of another country. Then he went berserk, demanding that HE - not the president - should have the sole authority on the usage of atom bombs and wanted to drop 50 atom bombs in the Chinese in a tizzy-fit over his actions proving him to be a idiot in planning - a mistake of predicting no action by the enemy that cost thousands of American casualties. Fortunately, he - like your LeMay - was fired for their insistence on dropping atom bombs on China and for your "expert" LeMay also to drop atom bombs on the U.S.S.R. LeMay also was ALWAYS 100% WRONG in his predicting the enemy was going to surrender. He predicted his mass firebombings of over 60 cities, including Tokyo, would force Japan to surrender - and like MacAthur he also was 100% wrong.

So... your "experts" include two who were proven WRONG in their predicting surrender or not action by the enemy costing MANY lives - and both wanted to initiate WW3 with atomic bombs. Not exactly the best proof you could offer, huh?

- - - Updated - - -

No, that is still false.

 

He knows this.
What does this tell you?