9/11

[kinboshi]

To Kin's point - it may not have been the incident that caused the Japanese to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to surrender in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

If this was the case (the bombs being a means for them to surrender), why didn't the fire-bombing of Tokyo achieve this end?  It killed more people than the atomic bombs, and was strategically more important than Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to the Japanese leaders.

There's something very significant about the bomb on Nagasaki highlighting why the bombs weren't dropped with the intention of bringing the war to a premature end without the loss of life from a land invasion.  The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was a different sort of bomb to that dropped on Hiroshima.  One sort of technology had been tested, and there was the other that still 'needed' to be tried out.  A sort of justification to the massive investment in the Manhattan Project.  Again, strategically Nagasaki made no sense as a target to the Japanese war effort, so why target it in order to bring about an unconditional surrender. 

In addition to this, the dropping of the bombs was a message to the Soviets.  How was the post-WWII world going to be structured, and of course the US had a huge fear of the expansion of Communism from the Soviet Union and this was the real enemy in the American's eyes, and they certainly didn't want Japan to become part of the Soviet Bloc in this new world order.  However, the thought of making concessions to the Russians was less appealing to the Japanese than it was surrendering to the Americans - and the Russian declaration of war changed a lot for those in charge in Japan gave them a stark choice.

[Jon MW]

...
In addition to this, the dropping of the bombs was a message to the Soviets.  How was the post-WWII world going to be structured, and of course the US had a huge fear of the expansion of Communism from the Soviet Union and this was the real enemy in the American's eyes, and they certainly didn't want Japan to become part of the Soviet Bloc in this new world order. ...

I'm pretty sure this has been convincingly disputed. I don't there there's actually much evidence to suggest at that point in time that the US was worried about Soviet expansion - and that it's a revisionist view of the events to think that that they were.

There may be 'other' reasons for the atomic attack, and 'other' reasons for carpet bombing but the most likely explanations for those decisions being taken have always been the official explanations; namely to bring a quicker end to the war without risking a land attack and to demoralise the civilian population enough that they bring pressure on their leaders to end the war.

The strategy in any of these military cases might be 'wrong' and not actually have worked - but there's no strong evidence to suggest that there was any 'hidden' intentions behind them.

[ManuelsMum]

To Kin's point - it may not have been the incident that caused the Japanese to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to surrender in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

it may not have been the flying to two planes into the Twin Towers that caused the USA/UK to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to stop aggression and occupation of chunks of the Middle East in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

FYP

Ok Hiroshima Nagasaki don't look like classic terrorist attacks and it was kinda done in the context of war, but when you've thousands of innocent civilians with insta-death it's a little bit harder to take the moral high-ground against those who would do the same to your own civilians (but with a better tan and longer beard) to make you scared of further action too.


The same USA who invaded Iraq to attack Saddam for invading Kuwait, an invasion which the USA had more or less rubber stamped!!!

[nirvana]

...
In addition to this, the dropping of the bombs was a message to the Soviets.  How was the post-WWII world going to be structured, and of course the US had a huge fear of the expansion of Communism from the Soviet Union and this was the real enemy in the American's eyes, and they certainly didn't want Japan to become part of the Soviet Bloc in this new world order. ...

I'm pretty sure this has been convincingly disputed. I don't there there's actually much evidence to suggest at that point in time that the US was worried about Soviet expansion - and that it's a revisionist view of the events to think that that they were.

There may be 'other' reasons for the atomic attack, and 'other' reasons for carpet bombing but the most likely explanations for those decisions being taken have always been the official explanations; namely to bring a quicker end to the war without risking a land attack and to demoralise the civilian population enough that they bring pressure on their leaders to end the war.

The strategy in any of these military cases might be 'wrong' and not actually have worked - but there's no strong evidence to suggest that there was any 'hidden' intentions behind them.

I agree with this from Jon but not just to take sides with a well argued case against Kin's revisionist thinking.

[ManuelsMum]

To Kin's point - it may not have been the incident that caused the Japanese to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to surrender in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

it may not have been the flying to two planes into the Twin Towers that caused the USA/UK to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to stop aggression and occupation of chunks of the Middle East in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

FYP

Ok Hiroshima Nagasaki don't look like classic terrorist attacks and it was kinda done in the context of war, but when you've thousands of innocent civilians with insta-death it's a little bit harder to take the moral high-ground against those who would do the same to your own civilians (but with a better tan and longer beard) to make you scared of further action too.


The same USA who invaded Iraq to attack Saddam for invading Kuwait, an invasion which the USA had more or less rubber stamped!!!

Please explain

[Jon MW]

To Kin's point - it may not have been the incident that caused the Japanese to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to surrender in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

it may not have been the flying to two planes into the Twin Towers that caused the USA/UK to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to stop aggression and occupation of chunks of the Middle East in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

FYP

Ok Hiroshima Nagasaki don't look like classic terrorist attacks and it was kinda done in the context of war, but when you've thousands of innocent civilians with insta-death it's a little bit harder to take the moral high-ground against those who would do the same to your own civilians (but with a better tan and longer beard) to make you scared of further action too.


The same USA who invaded Iraq to attack Saddam for invading Kuwait, an invasion which the USA had more or less rubber stamped!!!

Please explain

lol politics-aments

Sounds pretty obviously like a diplomatic blunder followed by an attempt to cover it up. A diplomat saying that the US wants to stay friends with Iraq (as they had been for quite a while) and that they don't want to get involved in any of their local disputes is a long way from a rubber stamp anyway.

It's also fairly overt politicking when Ron Paul suggests this caused the current problems when, if anything, it only contributed to the first war with Iraq. That was over relatively cleanly and quickly - it could have stopped there, the further developments after that may have still been caused by the USA (or not) but they've got nothing to do with that diplomatic error at the beginning.

3 things you should never take at face value are diplomacy, politics and wikileaks.

[kinboshi]

...
In addition to this, the dropping of the bombs was a message to the Soviets.  How was the post-WWII world going to be structured, and of course the US had a huge fear of the expansion of Communism from the Soviet Union and this was the real enemy in the American's eyes, and they certainly didn't want Japan to become part of the Soviet Bloc in this new world order. ...

I'm pretty sure this has been convincingly disputed. I don't there there's actually much evidence to suggest at that point in time that the US was worried about Soviet expansion - and that it's a revisionist view of the events to think that that they were.

There may be 'other' reasons for the atomic attack, and 'other' reasons for carpet bombing but the most likely explanations for those decisions being taken have always been the official explanations; namely to bring a quicker end to the war without risking a land attack and to demoralise the civilian population enough that they bring pressure on their leaders to end the war.

The strategy in any of these military cases might be 'wrong' and not actually have worked - but there's no strong evidence to suggest that there was any 'hidden' intentions behind them.

I didn't say the fire-bombing of Tokyo wasn't done with the aim of winning the war. I doubt they did it for giggles. Same with the atomic bombings, of course they were carried out as acts of war (the goal being to win, but also unfortunately to do this by killing loads of people, and often civilians), but the effectiveness of mass destruction of civilian populations in a country where the leaders were calling on its people to fight to the death and never surrender doesn't really knit. I also think it's very naiive to think there weren't other factors behind the atomic bombings (and I obviously think these other factors were the driving factors).

Anyway, I doubt anyone will want to read the book, but you might want to read this article about it: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full

[Jon MW]

...
In addition to this, the dropping of the bombs was a message to the Soviets.  How was the post-WWII world going to be structured, and of course the US had a huge fear of the expansion of Communism from the Soviet Union and this was the real enemy in the American's eyes, and they certainly didn't want Japan to become part of the Soviet Bloc in this new world order. ...

I'm pretty sure this has been convincingly disputed. I don't there there's actually much evidence to suggest at that point in time that the US was worried about Soviet expansion - and that it's a revisionist view of the events to think that that they were.

There may be 'other' reasons for the atomic attack, and 'other' reasons for carpet bombing but the most likely explanations for those decisions being taken have always been the official explanations; namely to bring a quicker end to the war without risking a land attack and to demoralise the civilian population enough that they bring pressure on their leaders to end the war.

The strategy in any of these military cases might be 'wrong' and not actually have worked - but there's no strong evidence to suggest that there was any 'hidden' intentions behind them.

I didn't say the fire-bombing of Tokyo wasn't done with the aim of winning the war. I doubt they did it for giggles. Same with the atomic bombings, of course they were carried out as acts of war (the goal being to win, but also unfortunately to do this by killing loads of people, and often civilians), but the effectiveness of mass destruction of civilian populations in a country where the leaders were calling on its people to fight to the death and never surrender doesn't really knit. I also think it's very naiive to think there weren't other factors behind the atomic bombings (and I obviously think these other factors were the driving factors).

Anyway, I doubt anyone will want to read the book, but you might want to read this article about it: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full

Which is just like I said - the strategy may be wrong and their may have been other factors at work; but there's still no evidence to suggest that the primary reason for any of the actions that involve directly or indirectly targeting civilians weren't done for the militarily strategic aim that they were always 'supposed' to be for.

It takes contemporary thinking to see that these tactics and some other historical tactics were often unlikely to succeed, and in some cases were just plain barmy. At the time of their execution all military tactics have (almost) always got historical precedent or convincing contemporaneous arguments behind them to make them seem worthwhile.

So whether dropping the atomic bomb did or didn't end the war is irrelevant - it's how likely it would seem at the time that it could end it which is the question; and although that may not be an answered question, the balance of arguments would seem to suggest that the people who made the decisions had every reason to believe that it would.

[ManuelsMum]

To Kin's point - it may not have been the incident that caused the Japanese to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to surrender in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

it may not have been the flying to two planes into the Twin Towers that caused the USA/UK to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to stop aggression and occupation of chunks of the Middle East in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

FYP

Ok Hiroshima Nagasaki don't look like classic terrorist attacks and it was kinda done in the context of war, but when you've thousands of innocent civilians with insta-death it's a little bit harder to take the moral high-ground against those who would do the same to your own civilians (but with a better tan and longer beard) to make you scared of further action too.


The same USA who invaded Iraq to attack Saddam for invading Kuwait, an invasion which the USA had more or less rubber stamped!!!

Please explain

lol politics-aments

Sounds pretty obviously like a diplomatic blunder followed by an attempt to cover it up. A diplomat saying that the US wants to stay friends with Iraq (as they had been for quite a while) and that they don't want to get involved in any of their local disputes is a long way from a rubber stamp anyway.

It's also fairly overt politicking when Ron Paul suggests this caused the current problems when, if anything, it only contributed to the first war with Iraq. That was over relatively cleanly and quickly - it could have stopped there, the further developments after that may have still been caused by the USA (or not) but they've got nothing to do with that diplomatic error at the beginning.

3 things you should never take at face value are diplomacy, politics and wikileaks.

Whatever they meant by 'we won't get involved', it's pretty rich trying to use Iraq's hostility against Kuwait as the premise for invasion when you openly showed a lack of opposition to it in the first place. And withheld that crucial lack of opposition from those from whom you sought approval to begin hostilities.

The second Iraq war has a lot to do with Iraq's earlier invasion of Kuwait. Think WMDs, 90 minute readiness for long range strikes, all in the context of 'some bastard who had previously struck out at his own'.

Bush Senior and Bush Junyior both held high positions in the largest Oilfield services companies, which benefited massively from both invasions. Oops, coinkidink.

[Jon MW]

...
Whatever they meant by 'we won't get involved', it's pretty rich trying to use Iraq's hostility against Kuwait as the premise for invasion when you openly showed a lack of opposition to it in the first place. And withheld that crucial lack of opposition from those from whom you sought approval to begin hostilities.

The second Iraq war has a lot to do with Iraq's earlier invasion of Kuwait. Think WMDs, 90 minute readiness for long range strikes, all in the context of 'some bastard who had previously struck out at his own'.

Bush Senior and Bush Junyior both held high positions in the largest Oilfield services companies, which benefited massively from both invasions. Oops, coinkidink.

by "they" - you mean one single diplomat
That diplomat did represent the USA - hence my interpretation that it was a blunder, he should have known that it wasn't appropriate phraseology.

The second Iraq war was obviously connected to the first - but it wasn't caused by it. There could have been the first war without the second, the reason there wasn't has a lot to do with the Americans and Blair - and a bit of vitriol for the people who caused it wouldn't be objectively wrong - but all this stuff about the first one is pretty much just a red herring caused by taking politicking at face value.

[kinboshi]

Jon, the discussion was about what brought the Japanese to surrender. My assertion was that it wasn't the dropping of the atom bombs but the declaration of war by the Soviets.

The intentions of the US military is irrelevant to that debate.

If you want to have the debate about the main factors that resulted in the two atomic bombs being used, then I'm willing to put forward the argument that bringing the war to a premature end wasn't the only reason, and not necessarily the over-riding one.

[smashedagain]

But Hirohito is quoted as saying that the dropping of the bombs was instrumental in bringing japan to the decision to surrender. So even if the USA had just wanted to test out their new toys (by the way they had been tested in the desert on a number of occasions so they had a bit of an idea that they were not just fire crackers) they bought on an early end to WW II.

Just watched the bin laden shoot to kill documentary on ch 4 and wish that he had been captured alive and given a fair court trial.

[rex008]

But Hirohito is quoted as saying that the dropping of the bombs was instrumental in bringing japan to the decision to surrender. So even if the USA had just wanted to test out their new toys (by the way they had been tested in the desert on a number of occasions so they had a bit of an idea that they were not just fire crackers) they bought on an early end to WW II.

Just watched the bin laden shoot to kill documentary on ch 4 and wish that he had been captured alive and given a fair court trial.

Bold bit not true - there had been one test of the plutonium bomb. That was it. Creating fissile material was (and still is) incredibly expensive. Once they'd done the one test, and then detonated the uranium bomb over Hiroshima and the plutonium one over Nagasaki, they had none left, and even at that point it was taking weeks to create enough material for one bomb. Not that the Japanese knew that at the time.

Not got anything else to contribute, just being pedantic .

[redsimon4]

I thought it was the dropping of the bombs...

redsimon4

[smashedagain]

You will obv be correct Rex. I remember watching something years about all the victims from various testings but assume those  were all post war.