|
Post by n00b on Sept 20, 2021 18:25:07 GMT -5
Yes, Japan was so willing to surrender there was an attempted military coup and kidnapping of the emperor to prevent just that from happening AFTER Hiroshima was hit. Japan did not contact the US about surrender. Please refer to the FRUS documents where you have that evidence (you don't because it doesn't exist). Japan contacted the Soviets to open terms of negotiation. In terms of avoiding Soviet expansion, that's true. It's also irrelevant to the situation at hand. Of course Truman said it was a hard decision. Just like Belicheck said it was hard to cut Cam Newton. Again, refer to the real documents. What Truman said post-presidency is far different than his comments in 1945. Atomic weapons on Japan were not an atrocity. Easy for somebody with no skin in the game to say. 250,000 Americans saved from fighting a suicidal army with civilians already shown preferring to jump from cliffs than surrender. An enemy that engaged in bacterial warfare on prisoners, an enemy responsible for the Bataan Death March and hundreds of other incidents. The president's job is to win and keep Americans alive. It is to advance American interests. Sorry you don't like that. Cite your source for the 250,000 Americans saved. This was a stain on our history. It's all conjecture obviously, but here's a Wall Street Journal article. www.wsj.com/articles/the-atomic-bomb-saved-millionsincluding-japanese-11596663957
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 20, 2021 18:26:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 20, 2021 18:30:52 GMT -5
The thing is, we know some parts of the Japanese government were desperately trying to surrender to the US before the USSR invaded. Other parts went so far as to try to pull off a coup in order to prevent the surrender that did happen. The US also very much didn't want the USSR invading Japan.
So the bottom line is "we'll never know".
Also, the US had agreed with their allies that there would be no acceptance of a conditional surrender from either Germany or Japan, and the Japanese were still trying to hold out from making an unconditional surrender.
And finally, the targets that were selected for the bombs? They were in part picked because the targeted cities had been very lightly bombed. The US authorities, in part, dropped those bombs where they dropped them because they wanted to test how well they worked.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 20, 2021 18:30:55 GMT -5
Before the paywall:
"The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 75 years ago Thursday and Sunday, respectively, are regarded with horror and regret. But not using the atomic bomb would have been far worse. The overall Japanese deaths attributed to the two bombs are estimated at between 129,000 and 226,000. A July 1945 U.S. government report estimated that invading the Japanese Home Islands would cost five million to 10 million Japanese lives.
The U.S. landing, planned for Nov. 1, 1945, was to be substantially larger than the 1944 Normandy landing in Europe. More than 156,000 Allied troops landed on D-Day. They suffered more than 10,000 casualties, including 4,400 killed in action. They faced 50,000 German troops. The invasion of Japan would have involved some 766,000 Allied personnel."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 21:40:52 GMT -5
Actually, estimated casualties--according to the source material were expected to be 40,000-45,000 per month once ashore. Total estimate for victory was 863,000.
So my bad. I ballparked 363,000 too few on the American casualty side. Source: Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library, "Decisions and Assumptions to be Used in Preparation of Post-Hostilities Planning"
i believe--can't find the source for this--but I believe the US military still is using the Purple Hearts minted for the invasion of Japan when US soldier are injured. Even after awards for all conflicts fought by the US post-1945, we still have 200,000 Purple Hearts in inventory.
I'm glad people with panties twisted about the atomic bombs show such concern for American soldiers and the multi-million casualty estimates for Japanese civilians and military personnel.
So again, yes, I'm good with dropping those two atomic bombs.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Sept 21, 2021 0:22:24 GMT -5
Also, the US had agreed with their allies that there would be no acceptance of a conditional surrender from either Germany or Japan, and the Japanese were still trying to hold out from making an unconditional surrender. And it’s worth noting that some of the conditions that Japan wanted to put on its surrender were things like, “let us keep our slave colony Korea.” There’s a quote from Hitler that goes something like, “the great thing about fascism is that your enemies must become more fascist in order to fight you.” Nobody won WW2.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 21, 2021 7:24:27 GMT -5
Also, the US had agreed with their allies that there would be no acceptance of a conditional surrender from either Germany or Japan, and the Japanese were still trying to hold out from making an unconditional surrender. And it’s worth noting that some of the conditions that Japan wanted to put on its surrender were things like, “let us keep our slave colony Korea.” There’s a quote from Hitler that goes something like, “the great thing about fascism is that your enemies must become more fascist in order to fight you.” Nobody won WW2. Ya, the allies did win WWII. Let’s not forget who we were fighting.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Sept 21, 2021 8:10:31 GMT -5
Nuclear weapons include both fission weapons ("A-bombs") and fission-fusion weapons ("H-bombs"). Most modern nuclear weapons are fission-fusion, both because they can be vastly more powerful and also because they can be easily adjusted in moments to provide different yields ("dial-a-yield"). And it is beyond pedantic to respond to a post about bombing cities with a complaint about the terminology. Especially when the complaint is erroneous anyway. Question... When we were in fear of Nuclear war in the 80's; were those bombs just more powerful A-bombs or H-bombs? I ask because I always thought there was a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2021 8:14:07 GMT -5
The good guys won World War Two, no doubt on that and that includes China in with that. I'll even include the Soviets as "not as bad as Nazis" in the list of good guys.
From 1756-1945, you have world or continental sized wars from 1756-63, 1768-1774 (Russia vs. Poland and Turkey, concurrent wars), 1776-1783, 1787-1791 (Turks and Austrians/allies), 1792-1815 (French Revolution/Napoleon), 1821-1832 (Turkey vs. Greeks/outside assistants), 1853-1856 (Crimean), 1876-1878 (Turkey vs. all sorts of nationalities in Europe), 1904-1905, 1911-13 (Balkan Wars), 1914-1918, 1918-1921 (Russia vs. Poland and Baltic state revolutions), 1936-1939, 1939-1945...that's about 90 years of war in a little less than two centuries, call it 40-60 for war-peace years.
And since 1945? Nothing. Europe has been at peace, is in the process of unifying. That is a win.
And if you go with largeconflicts worldwide rather than just European-dominated fighting, you'd still find that post-1945, the number of wars dropped drastically post-1945. That could be because of the UN, it could be small countries taking advantage of the US/USSR Cold War, any number of things, but it's all post-WW2. Total win for the world in the defeat of the Nazis (and the Japanese and Italians)
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 21, 2021 8:18:36 GMT -5
Nuclear weapons include both fission weapons ("A-bombs") and fission-fusion weapons ("H-bombs"). Most modern nuclear weapons are fission-fusion, both because they can be vastly more powerful and also because they can be easily adjusted in moments to provide different yields ("dial-a-yield"). And it is beyond pedantic to respond to a post about bombing cities with a complaint about the terminology. Especially when the complaint is erroneous anyway. Question... When we were in fear of Nuclear war in the 80's; were those bombs just more powerful A-bombs or H-bombs? I ask because I always thought there was a difference. Hydrogen (thermonuclear) bombs. As mike pointed out, most of our modern nukes are fission/fusion devices. If we were still using B29s to drop Fat Man clones on China or whatever, it'd still be nuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Sept 21, 2021 8:33:48 GMT -5
Question... When we were in fear of Nuclear war in the 80's; were those bombs just more powerful A-bombs or H-bombs? I ask because I always thought there was a difference. Hydrogen (thermonuclear) bombs. As mike pointed out, most of our modern nukes are fission/fusion devices. If we were still using B29s to drop Fat Man clones on China or whatever, it'd still be nuclear war. Thank you VERY much.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 21, 2021 16:23:40 GMT -5
Sometimes people use "nuclear" to mean fission weapons, and "thermonuclear" to mean fission-fusion weapons, but really they are all nuclear in that they get their energy from nuclear bonds rather than chemical bonds.
Thermonuclear is a reference to the fact that very high temperatures are required in order to start the fusion process. Essentially a thermonuclear weapon uses the fission to create the same environment as a star inside the bomb, and that makes the fusion fuel fuse, thus turning the bomb into a very tiny star for a very short time.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 3, 2021 19:02:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Nov 3, 2021 19:34:48 GMT -5
Well this caused me to throw up in my mouth.
|
|