America, the only country to use nuclear weapons. Did they save lives?

[cannabineer]

How was he wrong if the Japanese were looking for the same armistice that Truman ignored for months, then signed?

They wanted to surrender, yet you're asserting they were hard headed and needed a double nuking to surrender. The terms they wanted ultimately were the terms agreed upon. Therefore the delay had absolutely no purpose other than demonstrating our power which is a pretty way of saying terror.

They finally wanted to surrender on the morning of the twelfth.
Previously, they did not offer surrender.
They kept stalling for a negotiated settlement.
That is not surrender.

That article you linked contained a tremendous flaw: it portrayed acceding to a negotiated settlement (not surrender) as "reasonable".

The war had been conducted in such a way that the choice had been reduced to the non-negotiable binary:
1) submit
2) be wiped out.

No amount of revisionism will mask that harsh central dilemma of the late Pacific war. What the bombs allowed us to do was minimize the progress toward obtaining outcome #2.
But a negotiated, non-surrender outcome was not in the cards any more. And to suppose its "reasonability" at our remove is a subtle sort of prejudice, imposing the mores of our times upon ones in which you&I did not live. Jmo. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

They finally wanted to surrender on the morning of the twelfth.
Previously, they did not offer surrender.
They kept stalling for a negotiated settlement.
That is not surrender.

That article you linked contained a tremendous flaw: it portrayed acceding to a negotiated settlement (not surrender) as "reasonable".

The war had been conducted in such a way that the choice had been reduced to the non-negotiable binary:
1) submit
2) be wiped out.

No amount of revisionism will mask that harsh central dilemma of the late Pacific war. What the bombs allowed us to do was minimize the progress toward obtaining outcome #2.
But a negotiated, non-surrender outcome was not in the cards any more. And to suppose its "reasonability" at our remove is a subtle sort of prejudice, imposing the mores of our times upon ones in which you&I did not live. Jmo. cn

These two contradict each other. If they were looking to negotiate, why not negotiate? All they wanted was to spare the emperor. Obviously that was not too much to ask since we did ultimately spare him. They would have been willing to sign the surrender they signed months before it was brokered.

Submit or be wiped out is the not the maxim of one who is defending themselves.

 

[cannabineer]

These two contradict each other. If they were looking to negotiate, why not negotiate? All they wanted was to spare the emperor. Obviously that was not too much to ask since we did ultimately spare him. They would have been willing to sign the surrender they signed months before it was brokered.

Submit or be wiped out is the not the maxim of one who is defending themselves.

Why not? If I were nation A and you nation B, and we ended up in total war against each other, there would be one victor. There may or may not be a cohesive surviving fragment of the vanquished. But if you attacked me, gave me one hell of a fight for it, and assumed an attitude of gyokusai, all or nothing ... and I could deny you the all, the remaining choice is nothing.
And if I won, I would want to be damned sure that a new, stronger, smarter empire with red hatred in its eyes could not spring up in the bootprints of the former one. So breaking the enemy is not revenge so much as prudence: and it is no time for false compassion.

This is why I hate war. Because to begin it is to commit to its resolution, which means the murder of at least one nation. And we needed to win militarily against Japan, but above all culturally against gyokusai. To admit a third acceptable option of partial surrender would have subverted that goal, and potentially left us with what we reaped so fully later with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and even the Soviets: an unfinished, expensive conflict that didn't have a real endpoint.

I suspect that you recoil from the totality of opposition, of sheer internecine conflict, that is real war. But I prefer it to the unresolved slow bleed of a "managed conflict", which never seems to achieve a conclusion. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Why not? If I were nation A and you nation B, and we ended up in total war against each other, there would be one victor. There may or may not be a cohesive surviving fragment of the vanquished. But if you attacked me, gave me one hell of a fight for it, and assumed an attitude of gyokusai, all or nothing ... and I could deny you the all, the remaining choice is nothing.
And if I won, I would want to be damned sure that a new, stronger, smarter empire with red hatred in its eyes could not spring up in the bootprints of the former one. So breaking the enemy is not revenge so much as prudence: and it is no time for false compassion.

This is why I hate war. Because to begin it is to commit to its resolution, which means the murder of at least one nation. And we needed to win militarily against Japan, but above all culturally against gyokusai. To admit a third acceptable option of partial surrender would have subverted that goal, and potentially left us with what we reaped so fully later with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and even the Soviets: an unfinished, expensive conflict that didn't have a real endpoint.

I suspect that you recoil from the totality of opposition, of sheer internecine conflict, that is real war. But I prefer it to the unresolved slow bleed of a "managed conflict", which never seems to achieve a conclusion. cn

To the magenta, there would indeed be one victor in that case, but make no mistake, both A and B have now assumed an attitude of Gyokusai. Therefore the victor is dishonest to say that defense, or saving lives was a priority. We were hellbent as they were on annihilation.

To the cyan, the terms ultimately accepted by both sides were precisely the terms sought by the Japanese prior to the bombings and the battle of Okinawa.

To the red, I also recoil from the massive proliferation of bullshit and indoctrination and propaganda.

 

[cannabineer]

To the magenta, there would indeed be one victor in that case, but make no mistake, both A and B have now assumed an attitude of Gyokusai. Therefore the victor is dishonest to say that defense, or saving lives was a priority. We were hellbent as they were on annihilation.

I disagree. There is a moral difference between total attack and total defense. We had no choice but either stamp out Imperial Japan, or leave a remnant that would remain forever at war with us. Destroying the aggressor is validly defense. It also has the extremely salutary side effect of cowing third-party contenders led by, say, loons from Georgia.

To the cyan, the terms ultimately accepted by both sides were precisely the terms sought by the Japanese prior to the bombings and the battle of Okinawa.

Not quite. It took a bit of wrangling for Japan to admit to unconditionall surrender. Hirohito answered to McArthur in the interim. They did surrender. McArthur, who had a lot of sympathy for the Japanese people and culture, allowed them to retain the Emperor, once he was convinced that he'd play an essentially ceremonial role and could no longer gather (or be used as a figurehead behind which a junta could gather) the authority of direct rule.

Some interesting reading.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html

To the red, I also recoil from the massive proliferation of bullshit and indoctrination and propaganda.

No argument there. I just consider the idea that war can be limited in every instance to be a sort of BS propaganda as well. Imo war is best avoided at all costs. But we cannot wish it away, or even milder. Jmo. cn

 

[fb360]

"it may have saved American lives (debatable)" ...??? I am simply amazed. Study Operation Downfall. That is what we avoided! More to the point, it completely turns your unfortunate impression around ... that dropping those two bombs cost more Japanese lives than not dropping them did. The sheer stubbornness of the Japanese can be appreciated by the fact that it took a second atom bomb to convince them that surrender was preferable to national and cultural gyokusai. cn

Dead on post.

It really is comical that the Japanese, at that time, were willing to fight till the end, or death, until the 2nd bomb hit. Truly a stubborn race that acted cowardly and childish. Can't hit someone in the mouth with your fist, and before retaliation, beg and plead to be let free with no consequence.

 

[cannabineer]

Dead on post.

It really is comical that the Japanese, at that time, were willing to fight till the end, or death, until the 2nd bomb hit. Truly a stubborn race that acted cowardly and childish. Can't hit someone in the mouth with your fist, and before retaliation, beg and plead to be let free with no consequence.

I don't think it was cowardice. It was being trapped in an impossible situation. Victory was impossible, and defeat had been ruled intolerable. We needed to jolt them out of that suicidal mindset ... and if we could not, we would have to be the instruments of their fate. Frankly I think the postnuclear outcome was least damaging of the realistic options available. A national "moment of clarity" isn't cowardice but remarkable courage. Jmo. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I disagree. There is a moral difference between total attack and total defense. We had no choice but either stamp out Imperial Japan, or leave a remnant that would remain forever at war with us. Destroying the aggressor is validly defense. It also has the extremely salutary side effect of cowing third-party contenders led by, say, loons from Georgia. Not quite. It took a bit of wrangling for Japan to admit to unconditionall surrender. Hirohito answered to McArthur in the interim. They did surrender. McArthur, who had a lot of sympathy for the Japanese people and culture, allowed them to retain the Emperor, once he was convinced that he'd play an essentially ceremonial role and could no longer gather (or be used as a figurehead behind which a junta could gather) the authority of direct rule.

Precisely, it took a bit of wrangling, not the battle of Okinawa and two atom bombs. Had Macarthur been permitted to negotiate as both he and Hirohito desired and Truman had prevented by stalling for the Potsdam accord, the very same surrender that was signed would have been signed with out need for the battle of Okinawa and the two atomic attacks which killed less that 1 thousand military personnel and 200,000 civilians.

They were fucked, they knew it, they were ready to surrender. They gave up on Gyokusai when the red army jumped in. They then decided to try to preserve their ancient culture. Truman on the other hand, needed to cow some third party contenders.

 

[fb360]

I don't think it was cowardice. It was being trapped in an impossible situation. Victory was impossible, and defeat had been ruled intolerable. We needed to jolt them out of that suicidal mindset ... and if we could not, we would have to be the instruments of their fate. Frankly I think the postnuclear outcome was least damaging of the realistic options available. A national "moment of clarity" isn't cowardice but remarkable courage. Jmo. cn

I was speaking in terms of allowing innocent civilians to die, as well as their hiding.

The choice to surrender was not cowardly, and was the best choice they ever made, as both of us have mentioned

 

[cannabineer]

Precisely, it took a bit of wrangling, not the battle of Okinawa and two atom bombs. Had Macarthur been permitted to negotiate as both he and Hirohito desired and Truman had prevented by stalling for the Potsdam accord, the very same surrender that was signed would have been signed with out need for the battle of Okinawa and the two atomic attacks which killed less that 1 thousand military personnel and 200,000 civilians.

They were fucked, they knew it, they were ready to surrender. They gave up on Gyokusai when the red army jumped in. They then decided to try to preserve their ancient culture. Truman on the other hand, needed to cow some third party contenders.

I am unconvinced that a timely and complete settlement could have been had without the nationally-visible horrors of Tokyo and the nuke sites. They were beyond the ability of the state news organ to contain. The awfulness forced to government to publicly contemplate and acknowledge the option of not winning.

We can't really argue if it would have gone one way or the other. The histories I've read of that time strongly support the idea that without the bombs, we'd have had to engage either in an expensive and protracted aerial firebombing campaign (deadlier for them and us) or Operation Downfall (way deadlier for both combatants). We're at an impasse of disagreement on that point. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I am unconvinced that a timely and complete settlement could have been had without the nationally-visible horrors of Tokyo and the nuke sites. They were beyond the ability of the state news organ to contain. The awfulness forced to government to publicly contemplate and acknowledge the option of not winning.

We can't really argue if it would have gone one way or the other. The histories I've read of that time strongly support the idea that without the bombs, we'd have had to engage either in an expensive and protracted aerial firebombing campaign (deadlier for them and us) or Operation Downfall (way deadlier for both combatants). We're at an impasse of disagreement on that point. cn

Propaganda imo. Yes, we have reached the impasse.

 

[RyanTheRhino]

I am unconvinced that a timely and complete settlement could have been had without the nationally-visible horrors of Tokyo and the nuke sites. They were beyond the ability of the state news organ to contain. The awfulness forced to government to publicly contemplate and acknowledge the option of not winning.

We can't really argue if it would have gone one way or the other. The histories I've read of that time strongly support the idea that without the bombs, we'd have had to engage either in an expensive and protracted aerial firebombing campaign (deadlier for them and us) or Operation Downfall (way deadlier for both combatants). We're at an impasse of disagreement on that point. cn

Funny you bring up fire bomb air raids, after Hitler started shooting rockets at civilians in Britain, Britain later joined by the US killed countless German civilians with incendiary bombs. City of Dresden rings a bell

from what i have read a city that was well ignited was hell on earth. The fire heated up air and made it rise , to compensate for equilibrium air surrounding the city gusted in with hurricane force strength that made it impossible to flee the city by foot. Also it kept fanning the fires in a viscous cycle of death.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

First of all, I have not argued that it HAD to be dropped.
Second of all, that isn't even the debate of this thread. The argument is whether dropping the bombs saved lives.

Lastly, the Japanese had their chance to surrender. We were at war with the Japanese. Unlike you and some others, I treat war, like war. If they didn't want to get nuked, they could have surrendered.

War is war, you can't make it pretty. Furthermore, if you are going to wage war at your homeland in the midst of your civilians, then you are responsible for their deaths, not the enemy who is following war orders. Flying planes into our ships, and then running back to the home island to hide amongst the civilians was not only extremely cowardly, it led to their race being nuked.

I don't blame America one bit. Just because our weapons are better, doesn't mean our war intentions are any worse

Yeah, murdering hundreds of thousands of people to put a stop to the war that already could have been stopped with a deal that ended up being identical to the one they wanted in the first place (the Potsdam declaration called for Japanese leadership to be killed, so naturally they weren't entirely in favor and ultimately they didn't end up executing those who misled the Japanese people into war anyway, so that wasn't even an important point to American leadership, at all).

Sure, war is war. But the peace deal was there to be had. But it was refused explicitly so that 200,000+ could be murdered to make a political point instead.

You can live with it and be ok with it, but there's no question absolutely no lives were saved. This is an indisputable fact based on what we know about the history. Many lives were lost. And it actually made me throw up in my mouth a little bit when I read CN's rationalization. I thought he was above it. But it seems personal feelings run deep on this for no particularly good reason.

Sadly we had this debate and he was aware the terms were no different and he still believes the propaganda. Shows no one is immune to it I guess.

I should remind you that your government thinks no more highly of you than they did the 200,000+ they murdered either, yet you sure want to defend them.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

You dont surrender under your own terms retard.
What fucking part of that dont you understand.

The terms ended up being identical. What part don't you understand? The bomb was dropped purely to make a political point. Not to save lives. Any belief to the contrary is contrary to the facts.

 

[tomahawk2406]

Funny you bring up fire bomb air raids, after Hitler started shooting rockets at civilians in Britain, Britain later joined by the US killed countless German civilians with incendiary bombs. City of Dresden rings a bell

from what i have read a city that was well ignited was hell on earth. The fire heated up air and made it rise , to compensate for equilibrium air surrounding the city gusted in with hurricane force strength that made it impossible to flee the city by foot. Also it kept fanning the fires in a viscous cycle of death.

watched a documentary on Dresden, fucking insane. people just charred on benches in the same positions they were in when they heard planes roaring above.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Then you of all people should know that war means war. If you are coward enough to run suicidal pilots into ships, then don't you think given the opportunity, or better yet, if the Japanese were in our position, do you actually think they would have acted differently in terms of allowing unconditional surrender? Do you think they wouldn't have dropped bombs killing thousands of innocent civilians?

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's called the moral high ground. Something America doesn't have and hasn't had, in a long ass time.

To respond to the beginning of your post, I asked you a question by using a question mark, but told you not to answer it because it is rhetorical. I don't understand how you think while American soldiers were dieing fighting their way in and onto Japanese islands, other Americans were giving the Japanese any benefit of the doubt. No American at that time felt any sympathy. My grandpa still to this day is racist against the Japanese, even in public. I asked him why so and he responded by saying that once he watched his friends die at the hands of a truly evil and cowardly enemy, he hasn't changed his opinion of them.

Of course they didn't. It's really easy to dehumanize people. You can see it even today. But the reality is most people from most places, if you met them, had dinner with them, etc. You'd see, they are not much different from you and me. We are all humans.

 

[cannabineer]

Funny you bring up fire bomb air raids, after Hitler started shooting rockets at civilians in Britain, Britain later joined by the US killed countless German civilians with incendiary bombs. City of Dresden rings a bell

from what i have read a city that was well ignited was hell on earth. The fire heated up air and made it rise , to compensate for equilibrium air surrounding the city gusted in with hurricane force strength that made it impossible to flee the city by foot. Also it kept fanning the fires in a viscous cycle of death.

Dresden was bad. Tokyo was worse. cn

 

[Harrekin]

I wonder if Japan had nuked the shit out of the US how many lives it would've saved in the following 75 years?

 

[Trolling]

I'm sure they would if they had the technology, hate to break it to you people, there's been civilian casualties in every single war that has ever been fought.


Old news is old.

 

[Harrekin]

I'm sure they would if they had the technology, hate to break it to you people, there's been civilian casualties in every single war that has ever been fought.


Old news is old.

Pray sir, do tell, who are the number one most belligerent nation on the planet so far in the 21st Century?

I'll tell you one thing, it's not US over here (see what I did there?)