Lives Saved Forgotten in Fallout From Hiroshima

The Arizona Republic ^ | 27 July 2003 | Frank Sackton

[DuncanWaring]

Aug. 6 marks the 58th anniversary of the destruction by an atomic bomb of Hiroshima, a target selected because it was an industrial city. Some 80,000 Japanese were killed in the attack, and another 60,000 died of radiation wounds over the next 40 years.

[DuncanWaring]

Preemptive strike on those who will soon be coming out of the woodwork to say "Japan would have surrendered in 1945 if we'd just asked 'Pretty Please with Sushi on top'".

[Arthur McGowan]

It WAS immoral for us to fight for "unconditional surrender." Precisely because the enemy, in such a case, cannot evaluate his options.

[DuncanWaring]

Options? The Japanese had two:

1. Surrender
2. Die

[xm177e2]

It WAS immoral for us to fight for "unconditional surrender." Precisely because the enemy, in such a case, cannot evaluate his options.

And what would his options have been had we offered a conditional surrender? They could have teamed up with the USSR to dominate East Asia. It sounds like it was more moral to smash them. What is so moral about letting your enemies off easy? After what the Japanese did in China and Korea (and elsewhere), we had no reason let them surrender on their terms.

[donmeaker]

It is important to note: Hiroshima was a Uranium bomb. The japanese physicists came out, took soil samples, did tests, and determined that the bomb was Uranium based. They knew well that Uranium 235 is no different chemically from 238, and that separation of 235 would be necessary to make a bomb. They reported that it was a catastrophe but one that could not be repeated. The high command ruled that the war would go on.

After Nagasaki, the same group of Physicists came out, took soil samples, and detected the radiation products of Plutonium. They knew well that Plutonium was chemically different from Uranium, and could be easily separated. An unlimited number of bombs could be made. The high command decided that the matter must be laid before the Emperor. The Emperor decided that he would direct peace, that the high command would loyally take all the blame, and that the political line in the future would be to blame American for use of evil weapons.

And so it has come to pass.

[Jeff Chandler]

If we hadn't demanded unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany, we would only have been postponing a disaster for the United States, instead of preventing one.

They had to be utterly defeated before they could be reformed.

[DuncanWaring]

What options/conditions do you think the Japanese should have had?

They had been raping, pillaging and murdering their way across Asia and the Pacific (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) for more than a decade.

The Terms of Surrender the Chinese wanted were:
1. All males over the age of 16 executed.
2. All females and all males under the age of 16 handed over to the Chinese for enslavement as they (the Chinese) saw fit.

The Chinese relented on these terms only after they saw what Curt LeMay had done to the Japanese cities.

I'd say the Japanese got off darned easy.

The last dozen years would have been a lot simpler, and hundreds of thousands of lives saved, if President George HW Bush had held out for "Unconditional Surrender".

[cartoonistx]

It WAS immoral for us to fight for "unconditional surrender." Precisely because the enemy, in such a case, cannot evaluate his options.

War itself is "immoral". Whenever a democracy is forced to commit itself to arms, the only outcome consistant with the cherished concepts of Liberty and Freedom is the abject submission and total destruction of the Tyrrany they have risen to oppose. To leave even the fragrance of despotism lingering above the "peace" table is to condemn future generations of free men to have to fight the same war again. THAT is truly immoral!

[truth_seeker]

"It WAS immoral for us to fight for "unconditional surrender." Precisely because the enemy, in such a case, cannot evaluate his options."

Precisely, WHY is it immoral, to demand Unconditional Surrender?

The enemy evaluated its options, and surrendered unconditionally.

The consequence was to SAVE perhaps a million lives (or more), and that is a MORAL outcome.

--That is if Morality is defined as preserving human life, when it can be done while achieving victory and surrender.

[gg188]

I say a million lives of our enemies are not worth the life of one U.S. citizen. This is especially true of the islamo animals. Sadly, that is not how things are viewed today.

[PhilDragoo]

"Japan would have surrendered in 1945 if we'd just asked 'Pretty Please with Sushi on top'".

We will send them to Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

[Congressman Billybob]

Quite the contrary. It is immoral NOT to fight for "unconditional surrender." You seem to have forgotten the Korean War and Gulf War I, among others. Lives should not be spent on trivial differences in the status quo. When the enemy nation is a dictatorship, such behavior by the US only strengthens the possibility the war will begin again, and THEN will have to be fought to a conclusion.

Enemies of the US do have an "option" during war. They can surrender at any time.

The more important purpose of a resolute foreign policy with the military option in play, is to pursuade hostile dictatorships of their "options" before a war even begins. Their options are avoid war with the US and remain in power, or cause such a war and be killed or captured as a result. That's the global lesson from what the US is currently doing in Afghanistan and Itaq, in case you've missed the news of the last few days.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Sixteen Little Words."

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Thank you so much for the ping - I'll check it out.

[patriciaruth]

For the Record:

Iwo Jima:
U.S. personnel: 6,821 Killed, 19,217 Wounded, 2,648 Combat Fatigue= Total 28,686
Marine Casualties: 23,573
Japanese Troops: 1,083 POW and 20,000 est. Killed

Okinawa:
Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed [including nearly 5,000 Navy dead and almost 8,000 Marine and Army dead] and 36,000 wounded.
Japanese human losses were enormous: 107,539 soldiers killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves;
US Army figures for the 82 day campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army.

[I. M. Trenchant]

They knew well that Uranium 235 is no different chemically from 238, and that separation of 235 would be necessary to make a bomb. They reported that it was a catastrophe but one that could not be repeated. The high command ruled that the war would go on. After Nagasaki, the same group of Physicists came out, took soil samples, and detected the radiation products of Plutonium. They knew well that Plutonium was chemically different from Uranium, and could be easily separated. An unlimited number of bombs could be made.

These are very interesting claims. Would you kindly refer me to your source for the validity of these statements ?

[I. M. Trenchant]

The Chinese relented on these terms only after they saw what Curt LeMay had done to the Japanese cities.

The less vexatious of the critics of Truman's decision to use the atom bombs usually point to three things:

1) Curtis LeMay, generally seen as the hardest of hard-liners, strenuously opposed Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, believing as he did, that use of conventional bombing would be effective and would achieve the desired results in an appropriate period of time, and without the need for a land invasion with its undeniable toll in U.S. casualties, 2) The decision to bomb Nagasaki was unnecessary because the Japanese were preparing to accept unconditional surrender and Truman was too hasty in his use of the second bomb, and 3) The decisions to use the bomb on largely civilian populations, rather than on military targets, were grievous, problematic and unacceptable under international law.

Would you be prepared to address any or all of these considerations ?

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

It WAS immoral for us to fight for "unconditional surrender." Precisely because the enemy, in such a case, cannot evaluate his options.

On the contrary, I submit that it has been immoral for the United States to settle for anything short of unconditional surrender in most post-WWII conflicts. Once an enemy choses to initiate a conflict with us they have no moral authority to expect anything other than surrender on our terms alone.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Fascinating piece - thank you again.

People seem to conveniently forget that the Japanese culture we know today is far different than it was in the 1930s and 40s.

If one is going to make reference to atrocities inflicted upon civilians, there are plenty to talk about that had nothing to do with ending the conflict...and they were committed by the Japanese.

[G-Bear]

I always thought it was a damned shame we only had two atomic bombs to use on Japan. We should have declared the home islands the "Western Pacific Testing Range" and tested later weapons there instead of wrecking those pretty little coral atolls in the south Pacific.

[Aegedius]

Curtis LeMay

So, one person thinks conventional bombs will miraculously start to work, and that's enough for you.

the Japanese were preparing to accept unconditional surrender

We were listening to their top secret conversations. One would think that if they were "preparing to surrender", then perhaps they might have a need to discuss it.

largely civilian populations

Both targets were chosen for their military significance. Finally, what goes unmentioned here is that the bombs saved the lives of at least one million Japanese, who would have died in the defense of their country.

The arguments against the bombs convince me that leftists are terminally unable to think logically.