Posted on 07/16/2017 9:22:26 AM PDT by harpygoddess
We did not drop the bomb on "Japan." We dropped it on a specific target in Japan.
I have argued elsewhere that dropping the bomb on a city was wrong. It should have been dropped on a military base, naval base, airfield, or some other military target.
Because bombs could not be dropped with pinpoint accuracy on German targets in WW II, the much-touted "precision bombing" of plants producing war materiel degenerated into indiscriminate "city busting." When the atomic bomb became available, no one thought twice about using it on a city. Yes, the aim point at Hiroshima was a steel mill, but the target was a city full of noncombatants: children, the elderly, people in hospitals, etc. Under the Just War Doctrine, they were not legitimate targets. But after our practice in Germany, no one even thought about such things. Instead of 1000 planes equaled one city, it became one bomb equaled one city.
One doesn't have to argue that the choice was between using the atomic bomb and not using it at all. The choice was between using it on a legitimate target, and using it on an illegitimate target. I argue we made the wrong choice.
Following the war, radar bombing became quite accurate. Because I was assigned to Wright Field and working on navigation equipment, I was assigned to take a one-week course in radar bombing at Mather AFB in California. We didn't drop any actual bombs, but the "drop" was scored by radar on the ground at the target site. My "drop" was scored as having landed within 100 yards of the target, the north west corner of an American Can Company plant on the West Coast. Not good enough for high explosive bombs, but entirely adequate for nukes. I still have the coin bank can the company awarded to any bombardier who came within a certain distance of the plant.
72 years from now and we here will be long gone. Speaking for myself I’ll be glad. Hate to say but America is over. At least the America of 1945 and the America I grew up in as a kid. I’m 61 and the America I grew up in has vanished.
I’m 62...
Still ready to make a splash!
So nice to be an arm chair general with 20/20 hindsight isn’t it?. Hiroshima was a military target as it was an army base and communications center. I am sick and tired of hearing this nonsense. The Japanese launched a war they had ever intention of winning. They attacked us and took a gamble. They lost. Tough sh!t for them.
Then again...
Japan’s entire culture was so strongly
Behind this fight that it was obvious
The U.S. needed a Knockout Punch.
Military Targets?
Every square foot of Japan.
>I have argued elsewhere that dropping the bomb on a city was wrong. It should have been dropped on a military base, naval base, airfield, or some other military target.
It wouldn’t have achieved the necessary shock effect that destroying a city did.
Thank you for your perspective.
While I understand that innocents died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have to balance that, with perhaps millions, on both sides, who would have died if we had been compelled to mount a conventional invasion of Japan to end the war. The fact is, it was a gamble, a calculated risk, taken by President Truman, to order the use of the bomb. History tells us that it brought the war to a swift conclusion.
I think that the Just War Doctrine must have gone out the window, as we were fighting opponents who didn’t believe in such doctrines.
The rock group RUSH did a great job on the concept of the bomb - not judgemental - just recognizing that it changed the world.
“Manhattan Project”
Excerpts:
...Imagine a man
Where it all began
A scientist pacing the floor
In each nation, always eager to explore
To build the best big stick
To turn the winning trick
But this was something more...
...Imagine a place
Where it all began
They gathered from across the land
To work in the secrecy of the desert sand
All of the brightest boys
To play with the biggest toys
More than they bargained for...
The big bang, took and shook the world
Shot down the rising sun
The hopeful depend on a world without end
Whatever the hopeless may say...
...The big shots, try to hold it back
Fools try to wish it away
The hopeful depend on a world without end
Whatever the hopeless may say...
I used to do a lot of work at the Hanford Nuclear site. My mom commented that a good friend of theirs worked there during the war building airplane wings. I chuckled and said “Those weren't wings he was working on!” She was adamant about it. I explained that he probably thought he was building wings as well - most of the workers weren't told what they were really working on.
It did go out the window. A bishop in Belgium wrote an anguished essay about the effect on civilians of the bombing of Belgian cities, citing the failure to follow Just War Doctrine. However, I don't believe the neglect of the Doctrine had anything to do with whether the Germans or Japs followed it. In Europe, it had to do with the inherent inaccuracy of bombing. Despite the "pickle barrel" legendary accuracy of the Norden bombsight, both the US and Brits gave up on precision bombing of war-related targets, and switched to city-busting. The bombing of Dresden is a good example of the latter. Dropping unguided bombs, from 30,000 feet, while maneuvering to avoid FLAK and enemy fighters, played hob with bombing accuracy. Eventually both we and the Brits gave up on pretended accuracy and switched to burning out the enemy.
Keep in mind that we didn't drop the atomic bomb on "Japan." We dropped it on a specific target in Japan. It has nothing to do with "revisionist history" to argue that we made a bad choice of targets, or that a better choice was possible. If we don't learn from history, we risk repeating our mistakes over and over.
It's worth noting that there was a major Naval base adjacent to Hiroshima. The same aircraft that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima could equally well have dropped it on that Naval base.
Remember, it was the Japanese military that wanted to keep fighting, and worked against any "peace-mongers" in the Japanese government. A direct attack on a military installation would have provided just as much "shock" as did the bombing of a city, and would have brought the message home directly to the military.
Actually I never made General rank. I retired from the Air Force as a Colonel. I did graduate from the Air War College, at which we studied a lot of strategic issues, including some from WW II. I think my educated opinion is just as valid as anyone else's and maybe better than most.
My book, A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons, has a very favorable foreword written by Edward L. Rowney, former adviser to the President on arms control matters. I argue there, at great length, that nuclear weapons can be used morally, in compliance with the Just War Doctrine. Doing so means aiming them at military targets, not at civilians who are not fighting us, and under a dictatorship, have little voice in the conduct of a war.
Thanks for reply. I’m sorry to say, I’m not quite sure what exactly you are trying to say.
You are right, we dropped the atomic bombs on specific targets in Japan, as opposed to “Japan” in general. Was my word choice really so improper? Is that really an important point? If so, what exactly is the point of making that distinction?
You can argue that we made a bad choice of targets. You made a case for that.
I think we have learned something from history, in that, nuclear weapons have never again been used in warfare. I think we learned how powerful and destructive they are, which perhaps has kept others from using them in anger.
Given the mass destruction caused by the bomb, I don’t see the significance of targeting the Naval base adjacent to Hiroshima. I’m sure that base suffered significant damage in the bombing. And Hiroshima itself would have suffered great damage if the bomb were dropped on said base rather than being at ground zero.
So I’m sorry, I’m probably missing your overall point. Should we have done conventional bombing of the Japanese naval base, rather than drop an atomic bomb? Do you think that would have brought about a swift conclusion to the war, as the atomic bombings did?
Didn’t we bomb many other military installations in Japan, prior to the atomic bombs?
Thank you for your service Colonel but all due respect you weren’t making the decision then , were you? The bombs were dropped the missions were a success and Japan surrendered.
Saying "we bombed Japan" implies we scattered bombs randomly from one end to the other. It obscures the issue of choosing targets.
My point was that the same bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima could equally easily have been dropped on the naval base. The base was a legitimate military target. No one could have argued over it.
As for shock effect, the primary resistance to surrender was coming from the Japanese military. Attacking a military base would let them know we were coming after them directly. They could no longer hide behind the civilians.
Granted, it's all water over the dam. But I think we made a bad choice of target, and I'd not like to see us repeat the mistake.
Well, if mistakes were made in how we chose the targets, those mistakes haven’t been repeated, because we have never used nuclear weapons in warfare again. And God willing such circumstances will never arise again.
Hiroshima was a perfectly legitimate military target.
“Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.”
” At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population, used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may not be highly accurate. Hiroshima thus had approximately the same number of people as the city of Providence, R.I., or Dallas, Tex. “
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.