The Best Read of the Year? # 1 - Shockwave Hiroshima.

[Bongo]

I think quite a lot of Japanese would have died in an invasion too - possibly more than 150,000...

[CelticGeezeer]

Sorry I didn't realise that nuking out two cities full of civilians was indeed a life saving exercise. I hope that the residents realise just how lucky they were.

[MadYank]

I think quite a lot of Japanese would have died in an invasion too - possibly more than 150,000...

That is correct.

If Allied/US forces decided upon an invasion of The Japanes Home Islands, the casualties to American forces would have been tremendous, 50,000 to 100,000 is a wholly reasonable expectaion. Now consider the state of the Japanese military at that point and the complete air superiority US forces would have enjoyed it is very likely that Japanese casualites would have well exceeded 500,000 and perhaps even 1,000,000.

Looking at it from this perspective, which is the least horrid? 100,000 - 200,000 dying in blidning flashes (or within weeks of those flashes) or 500,000+ dying over an invasion period of months along with the near irreperable damage to Japan's remaining infrstructure.

[CelticGeezeer]

Ok so what you are saying is that the American invasion was compulsory.

And that your troops would have killed even more innocent civilians than your nukes did?

[MadYank]

Ok so what you are saying is that the American invasion was compulsory.

And that your troops would have killed even more innocent civilians than your nukes did?

 A reasonable case can be made for this theory. Yes.

PS Innocent is a word bandied about far too often WRT these types of circumstances.
How would you react to an invasion of you home island? I assume you are not a curent member of the miltary BUT that as things were going poorly for the military and a foreign invasion force was closing on your home you may start fighting.

Now take this metaphor and think about the state of the Japanese populace. In a different time, with a far different culture, and a heavy handed military dictatorship and well controlled propagada machine. A very strong case can be made that a large % of the populace would have assited or actively participated in resistance of an American invasion.


Now where on the grand scale of innocence do thes civilians fit?

[CelticGeezeer]

It is still a war crime and I hope we can expect some charges soon, because I am sure less people died at  Srebrenica.

[CelticGeezeer]

The fourth Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") covers all individuals "who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power".


Protected civilians MUST be:
- Treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence, insults and public curiosity.
- Entitled to respect for their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.
- Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7.
- Enabled to exchange family news of a personal kind. - Helped to secure news of family members dispersed by the conflict
- Allowed to practise their religion with ministers of their own faith. Civilians who are interned have the same rights as prisoners of war. They may also ask to have their children interned with them, and wherever possible families should be housed together and provided with the facilities to continue normal family life. Wounded or sick civilians, civilian hospitals and staff, and hospital transport by land, sea or air must be specially respected and may be placed under protection of the red cross/crescent emblem.

Protected civilians must NOT be:
- Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. - Forced to give information.
- Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.
- Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. - Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution.

For more information see the Red Cross web site.

[MadYank]

Ok. Your last two posts have moved into a completely different direction and seem (at least to me) to have little bearing on the original discussion.

I doubt I will change your mind or give you a different perspective, so I'll just bid you adieu and peace.

[CelticGeezeer]

Hmm mm, sorry I would like to apologise for introducing facts into the conversation

[tikay]

I know why don't we invite them over to a demonstration of how powerful our new weapon is and give them chance to strike at our hierarchy.

I didn't mean the whole country!!! I was more thinking the ambassador! Maybe it wouldn't have worked, the Japanese psyche after all was very much no surrender, but surely it was worth a go.

If it didn't work then yes i would have supported the bomb over invasion.

The logistical and strategic reasons for this are numerous.

1: The Japanese Gorvernment WAS warned about the new SUPERWEAPON and dismissed it.

2: Even after the 1st bomb was dropped on Hiroshima they continued to fight. Discussions about how they were considering surrender and just discussing the terms amongst themselves is at best histoical revisionism.

3: Understand, Japan at this time was completely a military dicatorship. The emperor was maintained for pure appearances of the citizenry.
Also understand that Japanese military forces were continuing to fight (to the last man and even last civilian) before, during, and after Hiroshima.

4: The Japanese military leaders KNEW they had much to answer for (Look no further then their conduct in China and The Philipines) and as many people in these situations reat they will continue fighting until the very credible threat of complet extinction is made clear. That threat would ony be credible for these leaders with the use of the bomb on an actual Japanese target.

5: As another poster has alluded to: It is highly likely that well after WWII, knowing and understanding the effects of these weapons upon real people and real cities significantly added to the credibility of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) threat which in some large part at least kept the superpower blocs of the Cold War from taking the final insane step of launching on each other.

I spent 3 years on an OHIO class submarine (SSBN http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm) armed with Trident Missiles (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm), so I spent a long time podering these types of issues. Tis a rather ominous job to not only operate one of the most complex and dangerous pieces of machinery in history, but also know that ultimately you could be called upon to end the world using it.

Fortunately and unfortunately the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
Fortunately, because my sincere belief is that peaceful nuclear power is the only viable significant energy source for humanity in the future.
Unfortunately, because this technowledgy was born from and produced weapons of barely comprhensible power.

On a different note:
In repsonse to CelticGeezer's notion that bombing a city is sheer cowardice; Agreeing or disagreeing wth the decision to drop the bomb is one thing but cowardice? Absolutely wrong! It takes sheer courage to make that decision knowing the likely outcome.

This cowardice statement belies an absolute misunderstanding of almost ALL of WWII history, and in fact most of the histories of mans' wars. The population of a warmaking state is a fundamental weapon in it's warmaking abilty. This applies specifically to the Japanese of WWII who were certainly engaged routinely against all enemies.

See Saipan, see Tarawa, see China, see The Philipines, see Okinawa, see Korea, see Siam(Thailand), see Burma, see any other country touched by the Japanese war machine from 1930 onward.

In Summary: The United States Government and Military had much to answer for at the conclusion of the war. Most of which was reasonably committed to the horrid acts committed to prevent even further horrid acts category. Some which perhaps may never reasonably be answered (In my mind the firebombings, along with the British of numerous German cities for little to no strategic gain). And then some questions we shall and probably don't need to know of or understand.

Along with this though, the Germans and Japanese had a FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR greater toll to answer for at wars conclusion.
Additionaly, The British and other allies also had items to answer for.

No unit or country goes through a significant conflict without numerous moral dilemmas being confronted. Noone escape these conficts with clean hands. To assume it were possible or likely would be the height of naievity and is nearly as ridiculous as making blanket "XXXX was sheer cowardice" statements.

I disagree completely with your poiint # 2. Just because it goes sgainst one's argument, we can't conveniently label it "historical revisionism".

[tikay]

its a book about mathematical theorems actually...his book #2 that is...three minutes in to his sneak preview of it tonight various listeners were losing the will to live.

It's on the way. Fascinting stuff - "perfect numbers" & all that, magial stuff, and includes insects that breed every 17 years & how to calculate the length of any river in the world.

But I'm sorry, you'll have to wait, I'm off out today.

[tikay]

Interesting points on both sides.  There might even be logical and humanitarian arguments for dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima (not that I agree with them, but they are there).

However, the rationale for the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki is very loose.  Effectively it boils down to the opportunity to test a 'different' sort of bomb.  Not in terms of the death and destruction, but just in terms of the technology and physics.

The bombing of Dresden, the persecution of the Allied forces by the Japanese, the genocide of the Jews by the Germans, the use of the a-bomb on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  All works of evil, and not proportional acts of war. 

I had the opportunity to visit the museum of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima - and it's a haunting place.  Not in terms of 'us versus them', or how war puts two groups of people separated only by geography against each other; but in terms of how the human mind can focus so well on science to create a weapon that can destroy so many people in the blink of an eye - it's frightening and spellbinding.  It really is sickeningly awesome to think that mankind has the ability to create a weapon of such obscene brilliance.

I haven't read the book Tikay mentioned, but I might look it up.  I've got about 10 poker books that I want to read before Copenhagen (I need to read them), and another 10 books of general interest (including several by Richard Dawkins that look very, very interesting).  But once they're done, I might have a look at this one.  This sort of book certainly helps to make you look at your own humanity in a more critical light.

Merry Xmas everyone, by the way...

For me, this wins "BEST POST OF THE THREAD" by a mile.

[tantrum]

In repsonse to CelticGeezer's notion that bombing a city is sheer cowardice; Agreeing or disagreeing wth the decision to drop the bomb is one thing but cowardice? Absolutely wrong! It takes sheer courage to make that decision knowing the likely outcome.

I wonder if Mad Yank would still write this if the bomb was dropped on NY by Germans of Japanese?  Whether he would still call this act of mass murder of civilians courageous and necessary?

[wader leg]

The Japanese army had proved itself to be quite adept at barbarity over the years leading upto WW2 and continued this during the war.
150,000 dead civilians is no big deal in terms of WW2's overall statistics.
Japan hasn't been to war since or had any "incidents" in China as they euphemistically called the rape and torture of Chinese civilians.
So by not going to war since 1945 the Japanese haven't inflicted anymore civilian murders on any country, they have had their country rebuilt and they are one of the strongest economic nations in the world.
All because of dropping the bomb.
I dare say if your grandparents were wiped out in Hiroshima you might have a different view to someone who's grandmother was raped and had her babies head smashed against a wall by Japanese soldiers at the fall of Singapore.
But the view that you would share is that no-one should have to go through the same experience, and since 1945 no-one has.

[Royal Flush]

I wonder if Mad Yank would still write this if the bomb was dropped on NY by Germans of Japanese?  Whether he would still call this act of mass murder of civilians courageous and necessary?

Of course not, he could not be objective.

I hate when people use that argument.