Were the Bombs Necessary? Let's talk about it.
Greetings Steemit!
Today, August 9th, is the 72nd anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki.
I have already seen some truly jaw-dropping examples today of how uneducated these anti-American morons controlling the media have become.
Some of these people feel we should never have dropped the bomb. They say it was a war crime and we should have invaded the islands instead.
I study world history every chance I can. I would consider myself to be quite versed in any aspect of the second world war. So here is why we had no other choice but to drop both bombs.
---
Invasion Plans
We were forced to drop the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. Had we not taken such drastic approaches, we may have lost the war in the pacific.
The original plan, in the event that Oppenheimer and his colleagues failed in their hellish task, was to prepare for the full-scale invasion of the mainland. After the near-crippling disaster known as Operation Overlord, or "D-Day", the American commanders knew they could not bring tanks ashore until the beaches had been secured. (During D-Day, 29 experimental floating Sherman tanks, called "DD Tanks", attempted to land but ultimately only two made it ashore and were even these were quickly incapacitated.) Without armor, the infantry would be sitting ducks. The Japanese anti-air divisions and air force squadrons would prohibit the American B29 Super-Fortresses from providing aerial support. Japanese tanks would have no counterpart, making them infinitely deadlier.
Every beach in every Japanese controlled territory was rigged with mines and traps, and enemy combatants were crawling all over the place. Many beaches were comprised of black sand, which the Americans had encountered before; black sand cannot simply be walked upon. A soldier would have to wade through the shifty sands before having the chance to fire. The first time the Americans dealt with these sands, they were slaughtered by the enemy positions surrounding the helpless marines.
Last but probably the most important factor considered was the mentality of the Japanese people. Every man, woman and child believed that their emperor was a god. They were taught from childhood that to die in defense of their emperor would honor their families and their descendants for generations to come. Every living soul on the islands would have fought to their last breath for each millimeter of ground. The population of Tokyo in 1945 was roughly 3.49 million. This means that our hundreds of thousands of soldiers would have had to fight through enemy territory against an entire radicalized population; this is not even to mention that our soldiers couldn't just shoot women and children on sight either. Standing orders would have been to engage once engaged.
American commanders knew they simply could not fight that kind of mentality so deeply ingrained in the people of their enemy.
The First Bomb
Harry S. Truman took office during the period of time when American commanders were weighing the options of attacking the mainland.
Dr. Oppenheimer had completed his project, and the New Mexico tests were a complete success. $2 billion worth of research and development had brought two new weapons.
Little Boy was the first uranium-core bomb and Fat Man was the first plutonium-core bomb. These two bombs were ready to be dropped if President Truman decided to act accordingly.
He understood that a full-scale invasion meant hundreds of thousands of casualties without guarantee of victory.
On August 6th, 1945, Little Boy was dropped over the city of Hiroshima. Between 90,000 and 150,000 civilians and soldiers were killed in the blast and the intense radiation following.
President Truman demanded the emperor surrender or he would destroy another city. The emperor did not surrender so a second bomb was brought into play.
The Last Bomb
Fat Man was dropped on the city of Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. An estimated 40,000-80,000 civilians and soldiers were killed in this bombing.
The emperor responded this time by surrendering the Japanese empire, as well as publicly announcing that he was not a god. He was afraid that his people would die in their attempts to fight the Americans despite the surrender. On September 2nd, 1945, on the USS Missouri, the emperor officially signed the peace treaty surrendering to the allied forces.
The Emperor
What many people either don't know or fail to understand is that the emperor was not running the war. Emperor Hirohito had no idea that his generals attacked Pearl Harbor. He was told that we attacked him first and they were defending themselves. He was blinded by his trust in his generals, who didn't allow him to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. This is why the emperor was allowed to remain in control of his country after the war had ended.
The Figures
So back to the purpose of this article: was the bomb justified? Look at the numbers and you tell me.
Had we invaded, we risked
- Losing 500,000 marines and many of the soldiers in our 8,000,000 strong army
- Losing the battle and being unable to recover
Dropping the bomb, the numbers stood at
- Between 120,000 - 230,000 Japanese civilians and soldiers dead
- 20 allied casualties
The allies lost an entire 20 men due to the blast (POW's).
These numbers are figures I have off hand but a simple google search verifies them.
In my opinion, and judging by the facts, there was no alternative. Dropping the bomb brought an end to a war that had the potential to have been far, far bloodier.
---
If you believe we shouldn't have dropped the bomb, tell me why in a comment. Or if you agree, let me know. I'll respond to every comment; let's have a discussion!
Any opportunity to talk about this matter in an open and civil manner is to be commended.
There should of course be no exceptions as it is through open communication that the fog can be cleared.
Sadly I'm 'going dark' in an hour - but thanks anyway.
Thank you for stopping by, I hope we have a productive conversation here!
To be honest, it wasn't necessary as US would've won the Pacific war anyway, they just wanted a fast way to win it though, but an atomic bomb is never the answer. Make love not war!
While that is one theory, you should keep in mind that ignoring the Japanese empire was simply not an option. They would never surrender unless forced to. Also, remember that the bombs were a powerful message to the generals controlling the empire. The Japanese would never have surrendered without such drastic action. Believe me, if there were an option that didn't involve the bomb, I would be making an argument for that position instead. This option had the least loss of life statistically.
Thank you for your response!
Yeah, this makes sense, but an atomic bomb is a horrible solution nonetheless even if useful to fast end a war.
No one is arguing here that it's not horrible! I tried to include my feelings on this by calling Oppenheimer's work a "hellish task", I apologize if you believed me to be defending the catastrophic aftereffects of an atomic or otherwise nuclear bomb. I am purely defending the necessity of such action in a dire moment of world history.
We are on the same page here my friend
Looking back it seems that the bombs were the right choice to make.
However, some people think that the threat of the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan had as much to do with their surrender than the US nukes did.
What do you think about this?
In the end, it prevented many man more deaths than it could have been.
The Russians did play a part in fighting Japan, and after their successes at Stalingrad and Berlin, there was no doubt that the Soviet Union could have been a major player in the Pacific campaign. However, I'm not able to say whether or not the Japanese leadership took this into consideration over the fact that two of their cities were decimated.
Sir,. We are very grateful to this. You continue to have success in the same way.And keep voting. @ahlawat
Thank you!
Upvoted. I'm going to resteem this now :)
Much appreciated! :)
educative post...History
History that I hope we shall never have to repeat...
People are not anti american, people are anti killing innocent people you moron!!!
Trying to justify the murder of aproximately 200.000 people saying there was no alternative is not only untintelligent but it also show how disgusting you can be as a human.
I guess the propaganda got your brain and just pissed on it making you treat innocent people like disposable numbers!
No need to be so rude.
It's true than many of the people were innocent. It was awful that the bombs were aimed at population centers.
Even if there were alternatives, It was likely the best choice to make at the time. It did produce results, with minimal allied casualties.
You forget to notice how disgusting some of the atrocities being carried out by the Japanese military were at the time. Humans are all flawed and horrible by nature. When we come together we judge and take action. Sometimes it's bad actions like this and Nazi Germany. Sometimes it's good.
We elect leaders who sometimes have to make choices where disposable numbers are the best measure of success and doing what's best- Even if it isn't always right.
He technically wasn't the first one to use the term 'moron' in a sentence within this topic - but I quite agree that emulation is not optimal.
Incidentally I steadfastly believe that both nukes were unnecessary.
First of all, there were attempts on the Japanese side to end the war - and it was the Allies who were steadfastly aiming for the Emperor to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
Anybody with any understanding of the relationship between the Japanese and their Emperor will readily realize how that went down.
Thus Japan was attempting to get prosecution of the Emperor off the table - via the Russians as mediators.
Ironically when the first bomb dropped - Russia was 'honorably' on-hand to invade the north of Japan.
In spite of a diplomatic scramble on the side of Japan, the second bomb dropped... and the rest is history...
It is amazing that Japan has thrived so well since (with one or five hiccups along the way).
P.S. Japan was militarily a sitting duck and had little offensive capability - since the sinking of the pride of its fleet in 1943... but 'somebody' wanted to see what Little Boy could do - and to underline military supremacy in the decades and century to come.
Yep that part was understandable, but it didn't stop at just 'moron'. I wouldn't have said anything at all otherwise lol.
It's true there were other options and other attempts. Do you think things played out in a more unlikely manner than they should have based on the overall situation?
It actually doesn't surprise me that Japan has done well since. A lot American money was invested there to rebuild the economy and forge political dominance. The Japanese were subsequently banned from supporting any realistic military budget, so they were able to use that elsewhere. Piggybacking the trade network and outsourcing defense bargain!
I also believe that curiosity and a show of force was a major consideration when deciding to use the bombs.
I was hoping to provide an indirect nudge there - if emulation is not optimal then escalation is simply bad. :cP I could have been more direct - one should always be classy in one's communications (and name-calling (and worse) is not classy).
I personally think that there were interests at play wishing to see the A-bomb used in a real world situation - and that such eagerness smothered and over-ruled any attempts by Japan to opt-out, not once but twice.
The first bomb could easily have been dropped in a less populated area as a warning - if one were trying to be humane about it. Instead 'valuable data' was collected on the A-bombs effects upon population centers.
Of course - it is possible that Russia simply wasn't passing on Japan's mediation efforts (they did move fast) - and that the US dropped the bombs blind to Japan's efforts, rather than in spite of them.
You make a very good point about the effect of post-war political interference upon Japan. That should have been obvious to me but you put me back in the picture. Fortunately it has worked out well for Japan.
Also - 100% agreed with your final statement. A consideration indeed.
I did encourage responses from every opinionated corner of the earth so I cannot chastise you for commenting. However there is no place on Steemit for negativity such as yours. I invited respectful conversation about the topic at hand.
That being said, do not lecture me on the innocence of the Japanese civilians. Some of my ancestors were interned at Manzanar, while others were on the mainland in 1945.
Also, it is clear from your post that you read "anti-american" and immediately came down to write your comment. You missed the point of my article entirely if you are treating the Japanese people as all innocent civilians. Did you just happen to miss where I described in detail the mentality of every citizen living on the Japanese mainland? Please do not comment like this unless you have read and understood my argument. Understood, mind you, not necessarily agreed with. I wanted honest and civil conversation and you provided no civility to me.
Also the blue print for the atomic bomb was first created by the nazis in Norway. A British commando unit broke into the facillity and stole the blue print. The nazis already had heavy water, pure water to enrich uraninium. They blow the plant up and shiped the plans to the USA.
An interesting piece, while I think you over dramatise some aspects of your argument, I'm in agreement that the alternatives to dropping nuclear weapons would have been far worse for all concerned. Experience from the later Pacific war showed that not only would the Japanese military resist tenaciously requiring 90% and more casualties (if not total annihilation) before capitulation, but also Japanese civilian casualties could be expected to be massive. To take to larger battles during the later Pacific campaign Guam and Okinawa, military casualties in both engagements were well over 90% of troops present, Japanese civilian casualties on Okinawa were huge with estimates running up to around 50% of the total population. Add to this the casualties that the allied forces would have sustained attacking the Japanese mainland and the losses inflicted with little boy and fat man begin to fade. Nuclear weapons are indeed horrific, but an unnecessary potential death toll of millions, while not as dramatic sickens me more.
Thank you for response! As I said in a few responses, I completely agree with your sentiment regarding nuclear weaponry. If it wasn't the only option then that would be one thing...
How I feel about is that we had some very hard choices to make, and we did our best with what we had to work with -- or, at least, what we were led to believe that we had to work with.
If there were secret and sinister agendas at work here (e.g using civilians as part of some kind of power-trip experiment in the same way one might see how many firecrackers it would take to blow a watermelon to smithereens), that would be one thing, and it would be a war crime of the worst sort.
I hope that we won't ever do something like this again.