Nuklear bomb

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by BadAim

Damn! I conservative from the peoples republic of Maryland? I didn't think they made our kind there! LOLS

(BTW I'm from the PRO Connecticut, so I can relate)

I am old skool conservative.....not like these new fangled Rinos . I like all that individual rights/Constitution/small government stuff. Down here we call it Marylandistan and it ain't easy living here lol.

Andy: Just my own curiosity as I said. The way the US is viewed around the world is interesting to me. Like you (I am assuming here and you know how that goes) I would like the US to withdraw from world politics for a decade or so with our only demand being free flowing cheap oil. Small price to pay to make the Americans mind their own business, no? The reason I would like to see it probably differs from yours but we could agree to try it and see how it works out .

PS....I am glad this discussion stayed relatively civil by internet standards.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

The way the US is viewed around the world is interesting to me.

I wasn't aware I was even debating the way the US is seen. I thought we were debating the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. As far as I'm aware, none of the western Allies raised objections at the time, though I'm sure that they were aware of the project - the British were certainly deeply involved. To me the question is about what was done, and why, not about who did it.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

As far as I'm aware, none of the western Allies raised objections at the time, though I'm sure that they were aware of the project - the British were certainly deeply involved. To me the question is about what was done, and why, not about who did it.

Churchill was ecstatic at the news, his adviser Lord Allenbrooke wrote:

“Churchill was enthusiastic, and already saw himself with the ability to eliminate all Russia’s major industrial population centres” (Le Monde Diplomatique, August 1990).

[Splitter]

Yes, as far as I know, the western Allies were all aware of the Manhattan project one way or another.

The US flat out told Churchill we had the bomb. The Soviets were not told so specifically, but they knew about the Manhattan project through their spy network in the States. The Communist Party was fairly large here before the war so recruits were easy to come by (nothing against the Soviets on that front, spying was just part of the game). They did not, however, think the US has developed the bomb yet.

(Interestingly and as an aside, the Nazi party was also rather large before the war in the US.)

In all likelihood, the Brits would have been for dropping the bomb ASAP while the Russians would have sought delay. They wanted the opportunity to capture more Japanese holdings before the war ended. The Soviets wanted free access to the Pacific and were hoping Japan would be split much like Germany had been.

I am absolutely positive that future world politics was part of the decision making process for dropping the bomb. But I think the over riding factor for Truman was his responsibility (duty really) to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. I also think he saw that a decisive blow, as horrible as it would be, would save Japanese lives and infrastructure in the long run.

As I said earlier, no one in their right minds would volunteer to make a decision like that. Even if it is the right thing, even if there was no other real choice, you would still be signing the death warrant of thousands of people. It's impossible to imagine how much that has to weigh on someone's soul.

Splitter

[AndyJWest]

I think the over riding factor for Truman was his responsibility (duty really) to prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives.

As I've already pointed out, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Chester W. Nimitz, amongst others, disagreed. The war was already won. These American (and other Allied) lives were never in contention. Possibly Truman didn't realise this at the time, but there were plenty who were trying to get the message across. It would be wrong to hold Truman solely responsible however. He was merely continuing the logic of the western Allies bombing campaign, which had its origins more in gut reactions than in cold hard logic. That is the way of wars however. As I said earlier, what is done is more important than who does it. Understand this, and maybe such tragic events might become less common.

[ATAG_Bliss]

I found this debate quite interesting. I have no problem with or without having the Nuke in game. I only play MP and doubt I would ever see it there anyways.

As far as the RL debate:

I see both sides of the issue as far as the bombs being dropped. The U.S. was caught with it's pants down and a war started on a surprise Japanese military strike at Pearl. I think war is down right disturbing in the 1st place, let alone civilian casualties.

But:

The US asked for a conditional surrender and warned of the consequences. There was no response. A bomb was dropped. The US, again, asked for a conditional surrender. Again, no response was given. Bomb number two was dropped. If I recall correctly, a 3rd bomb was in the air/en-route when the surrender finally came through. I think the loss of life is an utter tragedy, but I also think the American people needed a surrender for the war to be over. We were struck with our pants down, with virtually no warning. The public was in an outrage. And quite honestly, when the public rises up together, the people do speak.

I am in no way shape or form agreeing with the use of a nuke or killing anyone let alone innocent civilians, but I do see both sides of the argument quite well. Unless my study of history is simply "wrong", I don't think the majority of the use of the nuke fell on the hands of the US. I think this falls on the emperor of Japan's shoulders and his pride. We did what we did to finish/end the war. I honestly feel horrible even thinking about it. It's an atrocity, but it was well with a firm warning that could have been stopped.

Just my .02 cents

SoW, on the other hand, is coming along quite nicely. . .

Cheers!

[T}{OR]

I like to call myself a bomber pilot, still - I fail to see the point in modeling the Nuke.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by T.}{.O.R.

I like to call myself a bomber pilot, still - I fail to see the point in modeling the Nuke.

If it was modeled as an AI only weapon it would make for some interesting interception mission. Especially using some of our 1946 Jet fighters for their indended roles.

Cheers!

[Splitter]

Just to clarify for those actually reading this thread, I think you meant to say that the Allies were looking for "unconditional" surrender.

The Japanese wanted conditions, such as the retention of the Emperor, no demilitarization, no Allied occupation, and also wanted to keep some of their territorial gains.

The Japanese went to the Soviets (neutral with Japan at the time) to have them act as intermediaries to get the conditions put into the surrender terms. Here again, the Soviets did not want the war to end so quickly so they sort of played both sides against the middle. It didn't matter though because the Allies had agreed that "unconditional surrender" was the only option.

So yes it is true that Japan refused to surrender until after the second bomb and not immediately even then. I just discovered a piece of history I did not know before: elements of the Japanese military tried to stop the surrender with a coup and nearly succeeded.

Splitter

Originally Posted by SYN_Bliss

I found this debate quite interesting. I have no problem with or without having the Nuke in game. I only play MP and doubt I would ever see it there anyways.

As far as the RL debate:

I see both sides of the issue as far as the bombs being dropped. The U.S. was caught with it's pants down and a war started on a surprise Japanese military strike at Pearl. I think war is down right disturbing in the 1st place, let alone civilian casualties.

But:

The US asked for a conditional surrender and warned of the consequences. There was no response. A bomb was dropped. The US, again, asked for a conditional surrender. Again, no response was given. Bomb number two was dropped. If I recall correctly, a 3rd bomb was in the air/en-route when the surrender finally came through. I think the loss of life is an utter tragedy, but I also think the American people needed a surrender for the war to be over. We were struck with our pants down, with virtually no warning. The public was in an outrage. And quite honestly, when the public rises up together, the people do speak.

I am in no way shape or form agreeing with the use of a nuke or killing anyone let alone innocent civilians, but I do see both sides of the argument quite well. Unless my study of history is simply "wrong", I don't think the majority of the use of the nuke fell on the hands of the US. I think this falls on the emperor of Japan's shoulders and his pride. We did what we did to finish/end the war. I honestly feel horrible even thinking about it. It's an atrocity, but it was well with a firm warning that could have been stopped.

Just my .02 cents

SoW, on the other hand, is coming along quite nicely. . .

Cheers!

[AndyJWest]

I think we need to get events and dates right here:

On August 6, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Late in the evening of August 8, in accordance with Yalta agreements but in violation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, it invaded the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later that day the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=16037&page=4
The Japanese surrendered ('conditionally' on the understanding that the Emporor would retain his position) after the Soviet Union declared war. As to what finally led to the surrender, this is the question under debate. All the evidence suggests that they were in no position to continue the fight, as a result of the existing blockade. The attempted coup might have delayed surrender for a few weeks, had it succeded, but it could have had no effect on the outcome of the war. The Japanese were already defeated, as Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz (amongst others) had already concluded.