Nuklear bomb

[AndyJWest]

"Noam Chomsky". Well, there ya go. He pretty much hates the US.

There's nothing like an ad hominem argument to settle things, eh, Splitter?

Still, how about Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Chester W. Nimitz? Did they 'hate the US'?

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, written by Paul Nitze, concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, Nitze reported:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

This conclusion assumed that a conventional fire-bombing attack would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. One of Nitze's most influential sources was Prince Fumimaro Konoe, who responded to a question asking whether Japan would have surrendered if the atomic bombs had not been dropped by saying that resistance would have continued through November or December, 1945.

Historians, such as Bernstein, Hasegawa, and Newman, have criticized Nitze for drawing a conclusion that, they say, went far beyond what the available evidence warranted, in order to promote the reputation of the Air Force at the expense of the Army and Navy.
Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on 15 August 1945, though the War Council did not know the extent of the losses to the Soviets in China at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

There's nothing like an ad hominem argument to settle things, eh, Splitter?

Still, how about Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Chester W. Nimitz? Did they 'hate the US'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

Noam Chomsky is an anarchist. He has disdain for all authority. He is an intellectual elitist. He is anti-capitalist. He has taken every opportunity to criticize American foreign policy that he could. I say consider the source when citing his opinion.

The report you cite assumes that fire bombing would continue. Was fire bombing better? The report was also written after the war when Japanese (who had just been bombed and defeated, btw....they could have been a bit biased I am thinking) officials could be interviewed.

You leave out some facts, however, such as the Japanese plan to meet an invasion on the beach with thousands of kamikazes. And this quote: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.".

Also note that the Soviets had been urged to enter the war for some time, but they refused until after the first bomb had been dropped. Supposedly they had set a date to declare war on Japan. But clearly their objective was to grab a piece of Japanese occupied territory. If, as some believe, the Japanese would have surrendered as soon as the Soviets declared war then those people also have to blame the Soviets for waiting....(not my view, btw).

I understand that it is easier and more popular to believe that the US was and is bloodthirsty and would willingly sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for pure politics. But to come to that conclusion, you have to ignore a lot of facts.

Splitter

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I understand that it is easier and more popular to believe that the US was and is bloodthirsty and would willingly sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for pure politics. But to come to that conclusion, you have to ignore a lot of facts.

Splitter

No, actually the most common argument you come across (not saying it has any real basis) was that the US dropped the bombs unnecessarily because it was their last chance to test the weapons effects against actual live civilian targets before the war finished.

Personally I am not sure if that is likely. Whilst from the cold war onwards the US may have become arrogant paranoid and defensive and no longer cares about world opinion, the US in WWII had a much better claim to occupying the moral high ground and was far more concerned with "doing the right thing" than it has ever been since.

[AndyJWest]

Noam Chomsky is ... anti-capitalist.

So am I as it happens. No point in arguing with you then. I'll leave you to your comfortable ignorance of history...

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

So am I as it happens. No point in arguing with you then. I'll leave you to your comfortable ignorance of history...

I would never have guessed lol.

Purely out of curiosity and for my own edification, I inquire where you are from and your age.

I am 41 and from the US (Maryland to be exact).

Splitter

[BadAim]

LOL! perfect argument for placing Xilon on your ignore list.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I would never have guessed lol.

Purely out of curiosity and for my own edification, I inquire where you are from and your age.

I am 41 and from the US (Maryland to be exact).

Splitter

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)

[AndyJWest]

I am 53 and from London, England. Now just exactly how is this relevant to anything?

[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.