Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Nickdfresh]

@pdf27

Not to mention the fact that the reason the Japanese are so good at car making is because they actually listened to a chap named Deming in the 1950s. Deming, of course, was an American and largely responsible for how efficient the US war production was.

Yup! Not to further sidetrack this thread like Herman-the-mental-midget has started. But of course, now some Japanese (which often make their vehicles in the US as GM makes many of their vehicles in Europe and Mexico) makers are now having QC problems simply because they’re getting so big and have so many models. Mainly, but not limited too, Toyota. Their confidence has been shaken a bit with the “slugger engines of 1997-2003” debacle and recalls and problems with their line and the Lexus luxury division…

P.S. I meant “sludger engines,” as in sludge from cooked oil from poor cooling design…

[herman2]

@Rising_Sun

Well, you monomaniacal nuking genius, Honda didn’t produce a car until 1962. The company didn’t even exist during WWII. It got its start from a generator engine designed for an IJA radio. http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/encounter/text01/index.html

So, first, it’s a bit hard to nuke an auto plant that isn’t there and, second, nuking auto plants in Japan wouldn’t have changed anything as far as Honda is concerned.

Honda used many many slave workers for its benefit thus as far as I am concerned the company should of been bombed. It is unimaginaeable that the Honda today was deeply involved with the use of slave labor including our own P.O.W.'sThey may not have made a car until 1962 but they did exsist as a company and GM didn’t use slave labor for its cars, yet we buy Japanese cars from a company with a history that mistreated and abused our POW’s? as slave workers??

[Rising_Sun]

@herman2

Honda used many many slave workers for its benefit thus as far as I am concerned the company should of been bombed. It is unimaginaeable that the Honda today was deeply involved with the use of slave labor including our own P.O.W.'sThey may not have made a car until 1962 but they did exsist as a company and GM didn’t use slave labor for its cars, yet we buy Japanese cars from a company with a history that mistreated and abused our POW’s? as slave workers??

FFS!

How do you arrive at that?

I repeat, Honda did not exist during WWII. It didn’t start until well after the war, by which time slave labourers and POW’s were a bit thin on the ground. Also, it is customary not to bomb the enemy after it has surrendered.

I can’t decide whether you’re a troll or genuinely stupid. My guess is you’re both.

[Major_Walter_Schmidt]

and how the hell do you expect slave labour to be going on when the US had been occupying japan until 1951?

[Rising_Sun]

@herman2

… GM didn’t use slave labor for its cars,

That’s something else you’ve got completely wrong.

GM treated its own American workers as cattle during the Depression. http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/flintstrike.html

GM also used Nazi slave labour to produce its military vehicles and bomber parts in its German subsidiary during the war and also derived huge profits from supporting the Nazis and their war machine before the war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070505&articleId=5571

[Nickdfresh]

@Rising_Sun

That’s something else you’ve got completely wrong.

GM treated its own American workers as cattle during the Depression. http://www.plp.org/pamphlets/flintstrike.html

GM also used Nazi slave labour to produce its military vehicles and bomber parts in its German subsidiary during the war and also derived huge profits from supporting the Nazis and their war machine before the war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070505&articleId=5571

GM owned Opel, which prepared a good deal of the Third Reich’s truck transport until they were nationalized after hostilities (I think)…

[Ashes]

@Nickdfresh

I was being hyperbolic. I realize the bomber generals do not claim to have won the War single-handedly, but they seemed to be on a quest to validate what was largely city-killing that was often commenced at what can be thought by some as at the expense of soldiers on the ground. There are some with the view like John Keegan that believe that the air generals tended to scoff at using their resources in direct support of armies and that the losses incurred and the German/Japanese civilians killed simply did not justify the investment of both (the best and brightest) blood and treasure into the strategic bomber. So the criticism is two-fold: from both a moral and practical stand point. There are some good arguments out there that strategic bombing wore the Reich down in terms of attrition – even if production soared in 1944 largely because Speer successfully dispersed German industry making concentrated bomber attacks impractical.

The counter-argument is based on the use of both strategic and tactical air assets in a coordinated assault on the Wehrmacht in France just prior to Overlord, in which Harris and his American cohorts of Spaatz and LeMay had to be directly ordered by Ike and his RAF subaltern, Air Marshal Tedders, to provide direct support of the coming landings by hitting rail-yards and fuel depots as well as command control and communications centers; this while simultaneously largely abandoning the raids on German cities. The results? The rail-based Westheer was paralysed soon to destroy itself as Hitler ordered them to stay and fight rather than attempt a fighting withdrawal and creation of defense lines. There was also virtually no more opposition left from the Luftwaffe. Ample evidence was also provided by the obliteration of either a Heer panzer or SS division by waves of both strategic bombers and follow on tactical fighter-bombers in one instance of experimentation. I forget the exact details, but the US Army division drove forward only to find dazed stragglers and overturned tanks! Even if they did suffer the fratricide of something like 128 dead. Still a better use of air power than to burn and suffocate mostly civilians to death…

IMO

We touched on this on the Strategic bombing thread.

Guess most of what I thought on the subject was on that thread.

On the moral perspective, well that’s THE can of worms isn’t it?

And the practical stand point, I posted that In hindsight, the bombing might have been employed differently or better and no doubt some big mistakes were made, [and learnt from] but in the end it seems that it was decisive, in Germany, and in Japan. [saved millions]

Whats your view on the nuclear bombing of Japan?

[Rising_Sun]

@Ashes

So I guess I could safely say you think the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey was a load of old cobblers, or at the least, you don’t go along with it.

Did you have a gander at it?

Yeah, I’ve dipped into it before on various aspects.

There is no question that it’s a very useful document on a lot of aspects, but it often leaves a lot to be desired on things outside technical and immediate aspects of bombing, especially strategic and policy issues, including the prospects of Japanese surrender.

Its deficiencies in those areas, at least in areas I know anything about which is essentially Japan and its advance towards Australia, are illustrated by its somewhat superficial and or ill informed explanations of Japan’s strategic decisions, such as those outlined under Japanese Overextension (p.4) and its ludicrous figure of 332 RAF planes in Malaya (p.3) against the 158 which were actually there. The SBS figure appears to relate to what was approved, but not what was there. Similar flaws appear throughout the SBS.

I can’t get too excited about its views about the prospect of Japan surrendering.

[Nickdfresh]

@Ashes

We touched on this on the Strategic bombing thread.

Guess most of what I thought on the subject was on that thread.

On the moral perspective, well that’s THE can of worms isn’t it?

And the practical stand point, I posted that In hindsight, the bombing might have been employed differently or better and no doubt some big mistakes were made, [and learnt from] but in the end it seems that it was decisive, in Germany, and in Japan. [saved millions]

The hindsight question might be true if there hadn’t been more clashes at the Air Ministry. It seems more the case of single-mindedness and almost Douhet induced dogma. While I certainly haven’t read enough to form an absolute opinion, it seems that there was dissension in both of the major Western Allied camps regarding the priorities and usage of air power. Again, they had to be forced, kicking and screaming, to plan the direct support for D-Day. I see Harris’ goals of striking back at Germany early and without the resources to launch a major land operation as certainly valid early on. But I ideally, more should have pondered the effectiveness and goals of a strategic air campaign suffering horrendous casualties and performing very questionably. But at the same time, since the Luftwaffe never broke the will of the British people to resist even after inflicting tens of thousands of casualties. What was his causal evidence to support his thesis that slaughtering German civilians would cause them to capitulate any faster when all available evidence is that it made German troops fight even harder and more vengeful – and only marginally impacted production? Yes, the German’s terror bombed first, but I’m not sure revenge is the best policy to plan strategy with…

Although, it would take quite a bit of time to calculate exactly the effect of German production. But it was quite clear I think that even by 1943 that Germany had factories all over Western Europe in addition to the ones being shuffled around the Fatherland…

Whats your view on the nuclear bombing of Japan?

I think that overall it was the right thing to do in order to save more lives than were lost. I wish that at least one of the targets would have been a military or naval one though. Perhaps the Tokyo Navy Yard would have minimized civilian casualties…

[Rising_Sun]

@Nickdfresh

I think that overall it was the right thing to do in order to save more lives than were lost.

Those are relevant considerations, but ultimately the only question is whether or not it brought victory.

And I use victory in preference to ‘Japan’s surrender’, because the attacker seeks victory, of which surrender is only confirmation.

And Japan sought only victory everywhere it went, so it can’t complain about its enemy adopting the same standard, although it still does.

@Nickdfresh

I wish that at least one of the targets would have been a military or naval one though. Perhaps the Tokyo Navy Yard would have minimized civilian casualties…

WWII bombing was inherently inaccurate.

Civilians were bound to die.

As indeed they did under infantry, armoured and artillery assaults by both sides in all theatres.

Now some military clowns call it ‘collateral damage’ which apparently is the unintended consequence of ‘surgical strikes’. I’ve never been able to work out how collatarally damaged wounded and corpses look different to ones surgically stricken.

Does it matter what the targets were in Japan, if they brought surrender?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki as targets were a bloody sight more linked to Japan’s war effort than, say, the Sook Ching and other massacres by the Japanese of defenceless civilians in areas they conquered.

Only a suicidal idiot keeps boxing on Marquis of Queensberry rules when his opponent is kicking him in the balls, scratching at his eyes, and biting.

Japan got a lot less back than it gave, nuked or not.

[32Bravo]

@Rising_Sun

Now some military clowns call it ‘collateral damage’ which apparently is the unintended consequence of ‘surgical strikes’. I’ve never been able to work out how collatarally damaged wounded and corpses look different to ones surgically stricken.

Wonderful euphemisms designed to take one’s mind off the reality of maimed bodies.

Reminds me of the book “A Rumour of War” with its wonderful descriptions of soldiers’ injuries in Vietnam.

Does it matter what the targets were in Japan, if they brought surrender?

It matters not a fig!

The Allies didn’t ask for a War with the Axis powers. The Axis opened Pandora’s Box, and many millions of innocents died on account of it. If there is to be any moralising over this or that bombing in the Pacific or European theatres, then the those that started the war should be recognised as being the root cause of such events. They took off the gloves, so the allies had no choice but to do the same and don the knuckle-dusters. All of those enlisted servicemen that sacrificed their lives to defeat the powers were also innocent civillians whose governments had to mobilize in order to rid the planet of an unmerciful and unrelenting evil.

[pdf27]

@Nickdfresh

I wish that at least one of the targets would have been a military or naval one though. Perhaps the Tokyo Navy Yard would have minimized civilian casualties…

They were - Hiroshima was a major military port, and the second bomb was originally aimed at the Kokura Arsenal, and hit the Mitsubishi Torpedo factory in Nagasaki instead. Unfortunately using nuclear weapons means that to destroy military targets you normally have to kill the city that surrounds them…

[Nickdfresh]

@pdf27

They were - Hiroshima was a major military port, and the second bomb was originally aimed at the Kokura Arsenal, and hit the Mitsubishi Torpedo factory in Nagasaki instead. Unfortunately using nuclear weapons means that to destroy military targets you normally have to kill the city that surrounds them…

Yes well, the same logic was employed on US firebombing. That is that the jet stream prevented high level accurate bombing, so low level attacks with incendiaries was preferable to attack industry. Never mind that they had to set civilian housing ablaze and Japanese mothers scurried to bodies of water (that often boiled) to save the babies lashed to their backs – only to find that their children had been cooked and split open as they ran from the inferno…

Granted, their husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, etc. may have raped Korean girls, starved Chinese villages, or summarily executed Western POWs. But, that doesn’t justify it…

The thing is, Japanese industry was largely useless and vulnerable to blockade of resources, and none of it was really necessary.

In any case, the bombs weren’t used to attack individual factories. And no one bothered to bomb said plants before the atom bomb droppings. Because we both know the cities were saved for such a demonstration of power…

[pdf27]

@Nickdfresh

Yes well, the same logic was employed on US firebombing. That is that the jet stream prevented high level accurate bombing, so low level attacks with incendiaries was preferable to attack industry.

The other aspect of it is that Japanese industry was (and still is) very highly distributed, with people often running very small businesses in their own homes. No form of accurate bombing will ever deal with this.

@Nickdfresh

The thing is, Japanese industry was largely useless and vulnerable to blockade of resources, and none of it was really necessary.

Did the USAAF know this? I suspect not…

@Nickdfresh

And no one bothered to bomb said plants before the atom bomb droppings. Because we both know the cities were saved for such a demonstration of power…

Was the USAAF ever sitting idle not bombing anything because they’d hit everything but these cities? I’m pretty sure the answer is no, in which case this point is pretty much irrelevant as some other Japanese city/industrial plant would have been hit in their place.

[Nickdfresh]

@pdf27

The other aspect of it is that Japanese industry was (and still is) very highly distributed, with people often running very small businesses in their own homes. No form of accurate bombing will ever deal with this.

But I’m not sure how much they really needed too.

Did the USAAF know this? I suspect not…

Perhaps not to any concrete, statistical extent; but someone knew that the Japanese were always at a severe firepower disadvantage and lacked transport and heavy weapons and had essentially stood by in weapons development when compared to the increasing US firepower and efficiency…

Was the USAAF ever sitting idle not bombing anything because they’d hit everything but these cities? I’m pretty sure the answer is no, in which case this point is pretty much irrelevant as some other Japanese city/industrial plant would have been hit in their place.

Absolutely not. They merely attack ports, rail, and garrisons as the Japanese had correctly pinpointed the planned landing areas of Operation Downfall.

Also. expanding the mining program would have further incapacatated Japanese merchant shipping to an even greater extent…

[pdf27]

@Nickdfresh

Also. expanding the mining program would have further incapacatated Japanese merchant shipping to an even greater extent…

Just had a thought: how much would an extended mining campaign have restricted Allied Naval freedom of movement during a potential invasion? That might be the reason they didn’t expand it more than they historically did.

[Chevan]

@Nickdfresh

… But at the same time, since the Luftwaffe never broke the will of the British people to resist even after inflicting tens of thousands of casualties. What was his causal evidence to support his thesis that slaughtering German civilians would cause them to capitulate any faster when all available evidence is that it made German troops fight even harder and more vengeful – and only marginally impacted production? Yes, the German’s terror bombed first, but I’m not sure revenge is the best policy to plan strategy with…

This is exactly what i’ve wrote to you from most beginning of this thread:)

I think that overall it was the right thing to do in order to save more lives than were lost. I wish that at least one of the targets would have been a military or naval one though. Perhaps the Tokyo Navy Yard would have minimized civilian casualties…

The USAAF had bombed the Tokio in march of 1945- with no effect ( as any previous carpet bombing raids) except the burning out the civils areas.
There is a logical mistake hides IMO.
If you are going to burn the ONLY Navy Yard ( or other military targets) , and the death rate should be very limited, right.
Becouse the sea buldings and docs are not so well burnings things like a huts of workers - but this is in direct contraduction with official aim of a-bombing - “To demonstrate a demonic power of new wearpon”, right?
By other words- the official aim was to kill as much peoples as it was possible.
So , there is no doubts, nobody even care about Naval targets in Japane, choosing the cities-victims for a-bombing.
The ONLY criteria was the relatively small level of AA-defence and enough big population .
As i know neither Hirosima nor Nagasaki wasn’t seriously bombed during the previous years?

[Nickdfresh]

@Chevan

This is exactly what i’ve wrote to you from most beginning of this thread:)

Um, not exactly. With all due respect.

The USAAF had bombed the Tokio in march of 1945- with no effect ( as any previous carpet bombing raids) except the burning out the civils areas.
There is a logical mistake hides IMO.

I wouldn’t say it had “no effect.” The problem was that any pretense of precision bombing was impossible over Japan because of the jet stream, which prevented high altitude missions or any sort of accurate bombing. The winds were so strong at high altitudes, that pilots described the sensation of flying backwards at times, or as moving forward at such a small rate of speed. Consequently, it was decided that the force B-29s would fly in low and carpet bomb with incendiaries…I’m only arguing that there was very limited value in doing this.

If you are going to burn the ONLY Navy Yard ( or other military targets) , and the death rate should be very limited, right.
Becouse the sea buldings and docs are not so well burnings things like a huts of workers - but this is in direct contraduction with official aim of a-bombing - “To demonstrate a demonic power of new wearpon”, right?

To an extent, but I don’t think even the people who built it nor used it knew exactly what to expect…

By other words- the official aim was to kill as much peoples as it was possible.
So , there is no doubts, nobody even care about Naval targets in Japane, choosing the cities-victims for a-bombing.
The ONLY criteria was the relatively small level of AA-defence and enough big population .
As i know neither Hirosima nor Nagasaki wasn’t seriously bombed during the previous years?

Actually, there were attacks on Hiroshima, and I believe its harbor was bottled up with mines…

[Chevan]

@Nickdfresh

I wouldn’t say it had “no effect.” The problem was that any pretense of precision bombing was impossible over Japan because of the jet stream, which prevented high altitude missions or any sort of accurate bombing. The winds were so strong at high altitudes, that pilots described the sensation of flying backwards at times, or as moving forward at such a small rate of speed. Consequently, it was decided that the force B-29s would fly in low and carpet bomb with incendiaries…I’m only arguing that there was very limited value in doing this.

Yes and new low-altitude tactic has been at first time tested over Tokio in march . Effect was impressive…i mean in sense of scale of terror.The casualties were even higher then after first days of a-bombing.The lack of AA-defence means was also good surprise fro USAAF command.
But again- this has no influence at the will of Japanes to fight, righ?
They were still able and ready to wage a war…to the most end , even if the end was very close.

To an extent, but I don’t think even the people who built it nor used it knew exactly what to expect…

Actually, there were attacks on Hiroshima, and I believe its harbor was bottled up with mines…

Well OK, but hardly the previous raids on Hiroshima was such devastating , right?
So as i guessed in the august of the 1945 the Hiroshima has been choiced becouse it was relativelly undamaged city where the air boming attack wasn’t even expected.
So you see the choice of target was determined rather “political” then “military” reasons.
From the pure political point- you need the ONE very IMPRESSIVE nuclear attack that should shake the Japanes.That should destroy their will to resist.
But whom you want to shake- the Japanes Crazy suicidal Militarists?Hardly .
Those gues had no many choice how to die. You should impress their parents, wifes and childrens via the mass terror.
But the whole problem is that they already survived the terror during the previous Firebombing compain- and this had no effect on Japan Military staff.
So you have to burn the next other city due this tactic…
Honestly speaking the US did n’t need to drop the a-bombat all.
What was sense to nuke the japs with superexpensive a-bomb if you have more then enough the banal NApalm on stores?The couple of raids of few hundreds of B-29 should burn out the half of Japane for couple of mounths with the same effect ( and even more effective and cheaper) and job well done.Japane will be destroyed finally.
So what was a sense to drop a-bomb?
You can’t answer, becouse there were no military sense at all.
The sense was in political plane- you have to demonstrate that you are exclusive OWNER of new kind of wearponry.Simply becouse of you personal ambitions:)Political ambitions.
So as i’ve sayed befor - the justification of a-bombing by the “saving of millions” is just a stoopid demagogy.
This is just like a justiry of firebombing of Japane by the “care about their lives”. This is more then rediculous.Althoug it probably has the effect on the Japane war mashine- simply becouse their workers died by tens of thousands per raid.
But this is more then disputable method from the human poin - you can kill one worker with 3-5 member of his family.

[herman2]

If U.S.A. only had the Hydrogen bomb at the time, then maybe only one blasting would have done the job instead of 2 Atomic bombs. A Hydrogen blast would have been much more effective in reaching the objectives of the military, in my opinion.

** Disclaimer - reading the above may make you stupid. The administration accept no responsibility for this - read this post at your own risk**