Nuklear bomb

[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.

[Blackdog_kt]

I agree with those of you saying that it seemed to be the lesser evil under those circumstances. Not a lot was known about the long lasting effects of radiation, so planners thought "invasion of Japan: 5 million dead, atomic bombs:200000 dead...ok, let's drop the bombs".

On the other hand, i can't see what more could Japan have done. They were under a very effective submarine blockade, their industry was mostly destroyed and their cities razed in a way that would make RAF's bomber command jealous (funny how the US was all about precision in the ETO, even to the detriment of their own crews' well being, but had no qualms about using the RAF style of bombing in Japan). Simply leaving them blockaded for a few more months might have done the trick.

However, this snippet here i don't see the problem with

Originally Posted by Splitter

Were the Japanese training civilians, including women and children, to resist invasion forces?

It's what every self-respecting population does when faced with foreign occupation. Just like the elderly and teenagers fighting in the streets of the German cities during the final weeks of the war, were they all Nazis? I doubt it.

It's been so ingrained in the collective mind of the west that we are always the "good guys", that we don't only expect to win every time, but we also expect to be greeted as a godsend by the population of the countries we invade. I can't describe how much i disagree with this train of thought.

It's the duty of every able-bodied individual who wants to be free to resist foreign occupation armies on their soil, no matter if they hate their own government to an equal degree. I had a small diatribe ready on the reasons behind my opinion, but it's taking things a bit too off-topic. Having been used by both "enemies" and "allies" in our history however, there's nothing that jolts the collective subconscious in my country like the threat of a foreign occupation, wether it is overt and outright military in means, or covert and waged by means of economy, diplomacy and behind-the-doors blackmail.

Back on the topic of the A-bombs, reading from the scientists involved in the project would be an eye-opener for many. A few years ago i was reading a book by Richard Feynman, a world-reknowned physicist that was involved in the manhattan project (he was also in the comittee investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster that identified the problems that caused the fuel leak and explosion).

It wasn't a complete autobiography, more like a series of chapters from his life, but a lot of it centered around science and the moral implications regarding its application. According to this guy, most of the scientists involved in the manhattan project were believing, hoping and downright advocating to use one of the weapons for display purposes.

The idea was to arrange a meeting with a Japanese delegation, drop the first bomb on an uninhabbited atol and tell them that unless they surrender, the rest will be dropped on their cities (Japan didn't know how many bombs the US had in stock). However, the military denied it because they wanted to observe the bomb at work on a live target. That's it, straight from the horse's mouth, the people who built the bombs and asked the authorities to conduct a display drop but had their request denied.

[Splitter]

I agree with much of that. I would just say that the indoctrination of the population, and the training of civilians to resist invasion, took the form of kamikaze attacks and mass suicides/murder-suicides on Okinawa. It is one thing to train citizens to resist invasion, it is another to encourage them to blow up their families with grenades to avoid capture.

The only point to that paragraph is to show once again that the Japanese were not going to give up willingly under the terms of the Allies.

The terms of the surrender offer were set forth at the Potsdam Conference. They were pretty straight forward and on re-reading, did not mention the Emperor. The last part of the surrender demand stated that it had to be unconditional and, short of that, Japan would be annihilated.

Japan rejected this and sought conditions to the terms, such as the retention of the Emperor as head of state (basically) among others. Even after two A-bombs and Soviet invasion, the Japanese hierarchy was split on surrender. Some in the military actively resisted.

A very determined people to say the least.

BTW, I have absolutely no doubt that military leaders in the west (the US) wanted to use the bomb as soon as it was deployable. It's what they do: kill people, break things, occupy territory. They are the sharp end of the spear.

I will also say that one can tell a lot about a culture by the way they treat those they have conquered. MacArthur and the Allies treated the Japanese much better than they expected.

Splitter

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I agree with those of you saying that it seemed to be the lesser evil under those circumstances. Not a lot was known about the long lasting effects of radiation, so planners thought "invasion of Japan: 5 million dead, atomic bombs:200000 dead...ok, let's drop the bombs".

On the other hand, i can't see what more could Japan have done. They were under a very effective submarine blockade, their industry was mostly destroyed and their cities razed in a way that would make RAF's bomber command jealous (funny how the US was all about precision in the ETO, even to the detriment of their own crews' well being, but had no qualms about using the RAF style of bombing in Japan). Simply leaving them blockaded for a few more months might have done the trick.

However, this snippet here i don't see the problem with



It's what every self-respecting population does when faced with foreign occupation. Just like the elderly and teenagers fighting in the streets of the German cities during the final weeks of the war, were they all Nazis? I doubt it.

It's been so ingrained in the collective mind of the west that we are always the "good guys", that we don't only expect to win every time, but we also expect to be greeted as a godsend by the population of the countries we invade. I can't describe how much i disagree with this train of thought.

It's the duty of every able-bodied individual who wants to be free to resist foreign occupation armies on their soil, no matter if they hate their own government to an equal degree. I had a small diatribe ready on the reasons behind my opinion, but it's taking things a bit too off-topic. Having been used by both "enemies" and "allies" in our history however, there's nothing that jolts the collective subconscious in my country like the threat of a foreign occupation, wether it is overt and outright military in means, or covert and waged by means of economy, diplomacy and behind-the-doors blackmail.

Back on the topic of the A-bombs, reading from the scientists involved in the project would be an eye-opener for many. A few years ago i was reading a book by Richard Feynman, a world-reknowned physicist that was involved in the manhattan project (he was also in the comittee investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster that identified the problems that caused the fuel leak and explosion).

It wasn't a complete autobiography, more like a series of chapters from his life, but a lot of it centered around science and the moral implications regarding its application. According to this guy, most of the scientists involved in the manhattan project were believing, hoping and downright advocating to use one of the weapons for display purposes.

The idea was to arrange a meeting with a Japanese delegation, drop the first bomb on an uninhabbited atol and tell them that unless they surrender, the rest will be dropped on their cities (Japan didn't know how many bombs the US had in stock). However, the military denied it because they wanted to observe the bomb at work on a live target. That's it, straight from the horse's mouth, the people who built the bombs and asked the authorities to conduct a display drop but had their request denied.