Posted on 08/08/2005 5:04:27 AM PDT by hildy123
August 6 marks the sixtieth anniversary of the devastating atomic bomb attack against the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki.
For the most part, up until the 1960s the predominant view was that the U.S. was justified in its decision to use nuclear weapons against the Japanese. There was a general consensus to accept, at face value, that American leaders had determined that Japan would not surrender, and that their determination to fight to the death against an invasion would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not a million U.S. soldiers.
But with the anti-establishment mentality of the 1960s came a new cadre of revisionist historians who began casting the decision to nuke Japan in the context of racism against the Japanese and political opportunism as a show of force to the Soviets. Consequently, for 40 years revisionists have used the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to flog America's conscience.
For years critics of the decision have asserted that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary because Japan was so weakened militarily that they realized their situation was hopeless. The revisionists argue that Japan was seeking to negotiate a surrender prior to the bombings. But information from top secret intelligence documents by the U.S. code breaking operation called "Magic" and the British operation called "Ultra" that was declassified in the mid-1990s disclosed a decidedly different situation.
American code breakers had been deciphering Japanese military and diplomatic messages since just before the Battle of Midway. By the summer of 1945, "Magic" was deciphering millions of messages. From these messages President Truman and U.S. military leaders concluded that Japan would not agree to an unconditional surrender.
The revisionists insist otherwise. They point out that in the summer of 1945 the Japanese were seeking a compromised peace to end the war through their envoy to Russia. But based on intercepted Japanese communications, what Japan was trying to do was make a deal to keep the Soviet Union out of the war. What the Japanese military rulers really wanted was a deal that would allow their brutal military regime that started the war to stay in power, something the U.S. and the Allies would never have accepted.
Yet the revisionists persist that the primary obstacle that kept Japan from agreeing to an unconditional surrender was the perception that Emperor Hirohito would not be allowed to continue as emperor. According to the revisionists, the Japanese were so loyal to the Emperor that they would have fought to the death to protect him. While that may have been true for the majority of the Japanese, some of the top military leaders did not hold the Emperor in such high esteem. In fact, when Emperor Hirohito announced his decision to surrender, a group of hard-line Japanese military leaders attempted a coup to overthrow him. The coup failed.
Finally, according to the revisionists, the use of the A-bombs were unnecessary because Japan's military was so devastated that the war would have ended in a matter of weeks anyway. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith even asserted that the use of the A-bombs only shortened the war by two or three weeks at most. But Galbraith and other revisionists couldn't have been more wrong.
The Japanese had been sheltering their resources in anticipation of an American landing. At the time of the bombings, Japan had over 12,000 aircraft for use against U.S. forces. In terms of land forces, some post war estimates indicate that the Japanese defense forces on Kyushu, the first island targeted for invasion, may have outnumbered U.S. forces by a ratio of 3:2. Typically, an invasion force must outnumber defenders by a ratio of 3:1 to be successful. In addition, the Japanese had been training civilians, including children, for attacks against U.S. troops.
The Japanese plan was to inflict such heavy losses that the war weary Americans would seek a negotiated peace. And had the U.S. gone forward with the plans to land on the Kyushu, they would have suffered horrendous casualties. Pre-invasion casualty estimates anticipated the loss of from 100,000 to as many as 1 million American soldiers and from 5-10 million Japanese military and civilian deaths. It has been estimated that for every month that the war continued, between 250,000 to 400,000 Asian civilians still under Japanese occupation would have died.
Revisionists dismiss these estimates as justification for using the A-bombs. But as Dr. James Tent, a professor of history at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, points out, such a dismissal is indicative of the sheer arrogance of the revisionists who, decades after the fact and far removed from the reality of the situation, would presume to judge those who had to make those decisions.
While the revisionists can second-guess the use of such catastrophic weapons on primarily civilian targets, the fact remains that the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the end of the war much sooner than any of the other alternatives would have and in so doing saved millions of lives. Given that the Japanese were already responsible for 17 million deaths, it is not hard to conclude that using atomic weapons to end the war was justified.
sinbad,
I'd like to reiterate what Night Hides Not said in thanking you for your service.
My grandfather was a combat engineer in the ETO. He had his orders to the PTO in hand and was prepping to board ship when the bombs were dropped. So instead of the Okinawa staging areas, the troopship took him to New York.
NEVER stop speaking out about your experiences - the words of those who were there, who lived through it, who were spared because of the bomb will always carry much more weight to the general public than those who weren't.
Bingo!
Anyone who answers the question with anything but an unqualified "Yes!", is showing their ignorance of the history of the battle for Okinawa, plus the effects of the B-29 bombing campaign on Japanese cities.
Waited for what? For them all to starve death or commit suicide at the Emperor's command? Is that supposed to be the merciful solution?
In the meantime, the US Service sit around in the ocean waiting for a plane-bomb to hit their ship.
GOD BLESS THE BOMB!
A lot has been written stating that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender. So thousands may have died of starvation, at least it wouldn't have been Truman's fault, like many are saying now.
Either ignorance or a strong influence of revisionist "historians."
All that "has been written" supposing the Japanese were on the verge of surrender is nothing but a wish. The cold hard facts speak against the probability.
What's this? I thought we were talking about the immorality of killing women and children? Suddenly its okay to put them under seige and watch them starve???? And you think no one today would say it was Truman's fault if he ordered the seige? Is this a morality issue or a hypocritical "clean hands" issue?
We did that (extremely ineffectively) to Saddam and bore reproachment for killing a falsely supposed 1/2 million Iraqis.
No. We did the right thing. We dropped the bomb and saved American lives and a vast number of Japanese lives. Truman would have and should have been impeached if he had not used the bomb.
I never mentioned immorality of anything.
I do not think we will ever know the truth about using the bomb.
The same program that was on this last weekend that said Truman would have impeached if we hadn't used the bomb, had people on that said it wasn't necessary also.
It is foolish to take the position that nuking civilians is morally wrong and that we would never do it again. If we promised the civilian population of China that we would never nuke them, how much would they care if their military confronted us? They wouldn't have a dog in the fight and would be indifferent.
All the nations in the world need to clearly understand that if they threaten America, every man, woman, and child in their country runs the risk of getting nuked.
"Truman was bluffing. He only had 2 atomic bombs and he only had one left. He dropped it and the Japanese surrendered."
"There were only 3 atomic bombs in the world in 1945. There was no capacity to make more for use in 1945. One of the three was set off in Nevada to prove that they worked. The other two were dropped on Japan. Truman had been told in early august 1945, that it would be at least a year before any more Atomic bombs could be produced."
"Truman was bluffing the Japanese, but the Japanese did not call his bluff."
I think you have your history a bit off... Truman wasn't bluffing.
First as to your contention that after the US dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan that the US would not have another atomic bomb for another year. The TRUTH is that there was a third atomic bomb being readied for a combat drop. Didn't know that, did you?
The United States actually had three Atomic weapons ready for use near the end of WWII, two of which were dropped on Japan, the third was being readied for a mission by Col. Tibbets' unit - the 509th Composite Group, when Japan surrendered. The USA had two "Fat Man" plutonium Atomic weapons in its inventory at the end of calendar year 1945.
In an August 2002 interview with Studs Terkel published in the British Guardian newspaper, Paul Tibbetts recalled something similar: "Unknown to anybody else--I knew it, but nobody else knew--there was a third one. See, the first bomb went off and they didn't hear anything out of the Japanese for two or three days. The second bomb was dropped and again they were silent for another couple of days. Then I got a phone call from General Curtis LeMay. He said, 'You got another one of those damn things?' I said, 'Yessir.' He said, 'Where is it?' I said, 'Over in Utah.' He said, 'Get it out here. You and your crew are going to fly it.' I said, 'Yessir.' I sent word back and the crew loaded it on an airplane and we headed back to bring it right on out to Trinian and when they got it to California debarkation point, the war was over."
Source: Warbird Forum: The third bomb
Now let's get to your contention that the US would not have another bomb for another year...
The reason that your assertion is incorrect was that there WAS a production line set up to generate plutonium cores for the "Fat Man" model of the US nuclear stockpile. The US had not just invested 2 billion (1943) dollars just to make five atomic bombs in 1945, a production line was built... The only reason that the US did not go into wartime production mode on the 'Fat Man' plutonium cores is that the war ENDED. The "Little Boy" uranium gun-type atomic weapon first dropped on Hiroshima was a one-off model, never produced again. All of the other US atomic weapons were of the plutonium-implosion "Fat Man" model. So the first bomb was tested in the US during July 1945. Two more atomic weapons were dropped on Japan in August 1945. One more atomic bomb was being readied for Tokyo for late August 1945; it was never delivered. The fifth bomb was completed in November, 1945. At the end of calendar year 1945 the US had two "Fat Man" type nuclear weapons in its inventory out of the five produced in 1945, however if Japan had not surrendered the nuclear 'production line' was designed to produce 7 plutonium cored nuclear weapons per month. More than enough to take care of the Nazis and/or the Japs if WWII had lasted into 1946.
"A third bomb was being shipped from New Mexico, target Tokyo, when the war ended. Production was geared to seven per month with an expectation that 50 bombs would be required to assure that an invasion would not be required. Release of radiation from the untested Hiroshima bomb, designed as the original gun-type and made of uranium, was a surprise. The radiation range was expected to be within the blast radius, that is, a lethal dose of radiation would only kill those already dead from concussion. The Alamogordo bomb test and later production were of the more complicated plutonium, yet cleaner, implosion device."
Source: WW2 Pacific: Little Known Facts: Atomic Bomb -- Allies
The United States did feel the need to build more nuclear weapons in the immediate aftermath of WWII, since the demobilization of the 12.34 million Armed Forces of WWII had made the post-war US nuclear monopoly the first-line of defense for the United States and its interests. The expense of the $2 Billion Manhattan Project was amortized over the following production of US nuclear weapons from 1945 onwards.
Here are some numbers on the US atomic weapon stockpile from WWII onwards...
Source: Power Point Presentation USC Berkeley - History - 105, Dr. McCray "Early Nuclear Strategy" Slide #9.
Source: Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons The NuclearWeaponsArchive.org
dvwjr
The Japanese had suffered 800,000 dead civilians in just 5 months of fire bombing from March of 1945 until the third week of July 1945.
The atomic weapons killed less than one hundred thousand per drop. According to you 3 were gone and there were 2 more avalable before the end of the year. According to you those two bombs had to last from August 1945 until until the end of the year.
That means in the last half of August 1945 until the first of the year 1946 we would have had a total of two more atomic bombs to drop. In other words we could have killed 200 thousand more Japanese over 4 months with two atomic weapons. We killed 800 thousand Japanese in the previous 5 months with napalm and they did not surrender.
According to your figures we would have had less than one atomic bomb a month for use if the war lasted through 1946.
We could have done more killing the remainder of 1945 with Napalm than with the remaing two atomic bombs.
What the Japansese feared was not an Atomic bomb a month or 10 days of saturation Napalm bombing a month. What the japanese feared was 60 or a 100 atomic bombs in a month. Enough destruction to totally kill all Japanese.
That is why they surrendered. Truman was bluffing. He did not have enough force to bring about the total destuction of the Japanese. The fear of total destruction brought about surrender. And total destruction could not have been achieved with your figures on the number of atomic bombs available.
The prospect of 13 bombs over 16 months was not enought to make the Japanese surrender. That is a total of 1.3 million lives lost.
We know the Japanese were willing to lose 4 million people when we invaded from the sea. We were willing to lose 1 million invading from the Sea. And we had estimates of 1.5 milion American dead before Japan was totally defeated. You are trying to make us believe we were willing to lose 1.5 million, while the Japanese were not willing to lose 1.7 million. Does anyone really think that had the Japanese known the cost for the next 16 months was about 1.7 million people they would have surrendered. When we know they planned on losing 4 million in a single day when we invaded.
The Japanese feared total destruction. Even using your figures it is clear we did not have enough atomic weapons to wipe out the Japanese. We didn't have enough atomic weapons that could do more destruction than we had done in the previous year with conventional weapons.
Try New Mexico.
Where did you cut and paste this from?
Both sides of this arguement have been de-bunked, and reinforced. I do not believe we will ever know if the bombs were necessary...but of course, we all have opinions.
If only they were that benign. They aren't trying to wish away the past. They are trying to rewrite the past to affect the present and future.
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.