MADE IN AMERICA, . . . TESTED IN JAPAN




NUKE 'EM TILL THEY GLOW !


They started it.....

Tag for the before and after models of  Te**an.

Quoted: A very short history lesson.   I just want my fellow forum members to look at the bigger picture. Was the use of the atomic bomb NECESSARY?  No it was not a necessity.  The Japanese Empire was totally defensive and lacked the natural resources to continue to fight.  Had the US chosen to simply "wait them out" using a naval blockade the Japanese would have been starved into submission very quickly.   Operation Downfall (the code name for the invasion of japan) did have ghastly casualty projections.  The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb.   The bomb was used as a show of force to the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan thereby preventing the USSR from dividing and occuping Japan.  The uses of the bomb also had an underling racial motivation.  Many americans considered the Japanese to be sub-human as the prpoaganda of the era demonstrated.   I am not saying the Japanese were civil by any means.  They did commit some of the most inhuman atrocities.   I am simply attempting to state that the use of the bomb was not NECESSARY.

Your thesis is deeply flawed and typical of post-modern revisionism so prevalent among those with little grasp of the true facts surrounding Operation Downfall.  Clearly you have little knowledge of the   last six months of the war and the rationale for using atomic weapons rather than simply waiting out the Japanese.

Please get a copy of Richard B. Frank's great book, "Downfall : The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire".  A superbly done historical work base upon recently released decrypts and outstanding research.

The use of the atomic bombs saved Japan as a nation state.  It saved the Japanese people.  Their use plus the refulsal of the Soviet Union to intervene in their behalf, instead attacking in Manchuria, were the final nails in the coffin for the militaristic rulers of the Empire.  Had we not used the bombs, the war would have dragged on for at least another six months and the estimated casualties would have probably been well in excess for the Allies...and the Japanese as a race would have been all but expunged.

Please go do some detailed research.  You are incorrect:  The path the Japanese chose absolutely mandated the use of the atomic weapons.

Quoted: Great screen name: "Neophyte". It certainly fits you. Well I am new to the AR platform NOT the study of history.    I take it you feel that something from my post was inaccurate?

If you are not new to the study of history, then your studies have been very restricted.  You need to do some more research.

Quoted: A very short history lesson.   I just want my fellow forum members to look at the bigger picture. Was the use of the atomic bomb NECESSARY?  No it was not a necessity.  The Japanese Empire was totally defensive and lacked the natural resources to continue to fight.  Had the US chosen to simply "wait them out" using a naval blockade the Japanese would have been starved into submission very quickly.   Operation Downfall (the code name for the invasion of japan) did have ghastly casualty projections.  The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb.   The bomb was used as a show of force to the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan thereby preventing the USSR from dividing and occuping Japan.  The uses of the bomb also had an underling racial motivation. Many americans considered the Japanese to be sub-human as the prpoaganda of the era demonstrated.   I am not saying the Japanese were civil by any means.  They did commit some of the most inhuman atrocities.   I am simply attempting to state that the use of the bomb was not NECESSARY.

For starters, first person in a debate to play the race card, loses.

Secondly, about your "historical" discussion.  While you're partly right that a side benefit of the use of atomic weapons may have been to make the Soviet Union not enter the war against Japan, there is no primary source evidence that I am aware of to prove that.  The PRIMARY consideration, per both Truman and MacArthur's own notes & admissions, was a quick termination of the war without an invasion of the Japanese home islands.  

The Japanese empire was NOT defeated and lacking the will to fight.  Every indication, from both Japanese and American sources at the time, indicate the Japanese would have fought even more fiercely for their home islands than they had at Okinawa or Iwo Jima.  A naval blockade would NOT have worked, first, because blockades are notoriously inefficient, especially for an ISLAND nation, but also because of the Japanese pride and resourcefulness--it would have simply given the Japanese a chance to regroup from a national morale perspective.  No, we had to knock the fight out of them COMPLETELY--which meant total victory.  After all, that's the only way you win a total war.

You're technically right--dropping the bombs was not necessary in the fact that we didn't have any other choice--but of the choices we DID have, that was the least costly in terms of lives and treasure--the only standard that matters.  It had an additional benefit of saving the ENEMY lives and treasure--and while that's usually not a consideration in the kind of total war waged in the Pacific, it was important to understand that the Japanese could teach the Russians a thing or two about scorched-earth policies, they were that good at it.

And, by the way, your comment about "The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb" is pure, unadulterated crap.  That was a pretty reasonable figure, based on the projections of enemy strength in the area of the invasion, past casualty figures during other battles, and an assessment of the Japanese national will to fight.  

This article does a much better job of debunking that idea that there wouldn't have been that many casualties than I ever could.

Quoted: Interesting side note--most of the anti-nuke folks talk about the devastation of nuclear war, poisoning the world for centuries to come--and yet the only two sites where nukes were actually used in anger are now parks, surrounded by thriving cities.   Just a thought. (From an advocate of nuclear power, both peaceful and otherwise).

Quoted: I think that bomb was fertilizer, look how Japan has grown in 60 years. I do think we need to retest the bomb on sand though.

Great alternative observations

Good shoot.

So......... Am I supposed to feel pity?

I don't. Fuck 'em.

They started it. We finished it. End of story.

As someone already mentioned, what we need to do is send the pictures to the assholes in Iran and let them know they're next if they keep fucking around.

No, I don't love nuclear weapons, but I understand that they certainly have their uses.

Quoted: a little off topic but, have you ever wondered what the earths population would be if there were no wars before now? just think of the millions of men and women who if not killed in war would have an average 2.3 children and then their children would have the same and so on... and now think if we cure disease that are major killers, cancer, flu, heart disease, diabetes, etc. it's funny how humans fight the very nature that is built into it, just as everything else on this earth is SELF REGULATING..war is a natural balance to life and population. to resist war and disease is unnatural and unhealthy to the balance of the planet. EMBRACE WAR!

Actually, war is no longer a regulating influence.

If you look at the major wars fought in the past 50 years they have produced fewer and fewer casualties.

To resist disease is COMPLETELY natural.  Our bodies fight it from the first moment we exist.

If we went back to older methods of fighting wars we could see it being a regulator again, but who wants to go back to having mass genocide by the sword?  Look at Rwanda for a reference there.

Quoted: Quoted: a little off topic but, have you ever wondered what the earths population would be if there were no wars before now? just think of the millions of men and women who if not killed in war would have an average 2.3 children and then their children would have the same and so on... and now think if we cure disease that are major killers, cancer, flu, heart disease, diabetes, etc. it's funny how humans fight the very nature that is built into it, just as everything else on this earth is SELF REGULATING..war is a natural balance to life and population. to resist war and disease is unnatural and unhealthy to the balance of the planet. EMBRACE WAR! Actually, war is no longer a regulating influence. If you look at the major wars fought in the past 50 years they have produced fewer and fewer casualties. To resist disease is COMPLETELY natural.  Our bodies fight it from the first moment we exist. If we went back to older methods of fighting wars we could see it being a regulator again, but who wants to go back to having mass genocide by the sword?  Look at Rwanda for a reference there.

AMERICAN Casualties are down because were just so damn good, and were pitted against the most pathetic millitarys on the planet, there casualties however are CATASTROPHIC, the media just doesn't like to report it so they pretend that the enemy isn't takeing any casualties, and it's just us, not so as of a few months ago terrorist casualties in Iraq alone were estimated at about 100,000+, were averageing a kill ratio of approximatly 50-1 our favor, so going by those figures current terrorist casualties should be about 135,000+, that ratio is better than any war in human history....

As for the nukes they saved lives, the libs just don't like to admit that....  Look at the invasion plans based on our experience on the other islands we were anticipateing haveing to exterminate the entire population of Japan (Historical factoid just before the end of the war Japanese civilians were being trained to use PIKES, thats right the Japanease civilians were planning on chargeing us on the beaches, and in the streets with PIKES....), so we planned accordingly, on DAY ONE of the invasion for instance we were planning on dropping about 50,000 tons of Phosgene gas accross the country estimated casualties: atleast 10,000,000, that is just the first hours of day one, like I said the war plan was basicly the extirmination of the population of Japan....

Who was it that said "By the time this war is over the Japanease language will be spoken only in hell...."?....

Oh, and whats Phosgene you ask?...., it's a poisen gas first developed in World War 1 nasty stuff, it reacts with the fluid in your lungs turning it into acid, which then starts to dissolve your lungs, it's slow to, and if you only got a partial dosage your lungs would try and repair themselvs by releaseing mucus, but there would be so much damage they would fill up, makeing you drown on your own fluids, drowning on dry land whoed of thought?...., if you manage to survive that then you still have essentually destroyed lungs which can no longer proccess air, so you'll suffocate, assumeing you manage to survive you'll likely be dragging an oxygen tank behind you the rest of your life, it can take up to 2 days before the symptoms start depending on your dosage, and phosgene is heavy, and tends to linger in low lying areas, kind of like mustard gas, it's capabal of killing weeks after it's used....

Quoted: ... so we planned accordingly, on DAY ONE of the invasion for instance we were planning on dropping about 50,000 tons of Phosgene gas accross the country estimated casualties: atleast 10,000,000, that is just the first hours of day one, like I said the war plan was basicly the extirmination of the population of Japan.... Who was it that said "By the time this war is over the Japanease language will be spoken only in hell...."?.... Oh, and whats Phosgene you ask?...., it's a poisen gas first developed in World War 1 nasty stuff, it reacts with the fluid in your lungs turning it into acid, which then starts to dissolve your lungs, it's slow to, and if you only got a partial dosage your lungs would try and repair themselvs by releaseing mucus, but there would be so much damage they would fill up, makeing you drown on your own fluids, drowning on dry land whoed of thought?...., if you manage to survive that then you still have essentually destroyed lungs which can no longer proccess air, so you'll suffocate, assumeing you manage to survive you'll likely be dragging an oxygen tank behind you the rest of your life, it can take up to 2 days before the symptoms start depending on your dosage, and phosgene is heavy, and tends to linger in low lying areas, kind of like mustard gas, it's capabal of killing weeks after it's used....

Huh? Source?

Been studying this stuff since I was eight, and I never heard about that. I don't think that the American population would have tolerated the use of gas on the Japanese, although I have read that the Japanese were actively planning on using chemical weapons to defend their nation.

I think I heared that on the history channel awhile back, or maybe it was war stories, I don't know it was a documentary, and they got into the battle plan for the invasion of Japan....

The sad thing is that Hiroshima wasn't enough of a lesson for them. We had to nuke 'em twice before they got the picture.

I hold no ill will towards the Japanese today, but they got what they deserved in '45.

Quoted: Quoted: Your tag line states, "Islam wants you dead. Take appropriate actions. triburst1" During WWII the Japanese wanted us dead - our generation at that time took the appropriate actions.

Uhhh.. I hope you didn't take my post as anti-nuclear.
I am as pro-war, whrn necessary, as anyone you will find.
I simply came across these pictures while searching for a maid uniform for my wife to wear around the house and found them really interesting.

I believe in killing the other guy with as much extreme predjudice as you can muster up.[/quote]

My bad Tri.  I mistook the fellow who posted directly below you.  

10-4 to the line in blue.  

I don't beleive the question, "How many of our troops are worth one of theirs?"  I say, kill them as efficiently as possible and save as many of our guys as possible.  In a war, our people ARE more important than theirs.

Just throwing out some numbers for the crunchers:

Civilian Bombing casualties:
Dresden 25,000-35,000 KIA
Tokyo firebombing 83,000 KIA
Hiroshima 70,000-80,000 KIA
Nagaskai 35,000-40,000 KIA

Conventional bombing of Tokyo KIA was as high as Hiroshima, and less than Nagasaki.


WW2 Military KIA
Commonwealth 452,000 KIA
USA 295,000 KIA
Soviet Union 13,600,000 KIA
Germany 3,250,000 KIA
Japan 1,700,000 KIA

An invasion of mainland Japan would have greatly increased the KIA for the USA from the relatively low number of 295,000. A lot of quotes claim 1,000,000 as possible, that would have been an additional 2/3 of the wartime total to date. Was the bombing worth it in order to reduce casualties? I think so.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: a little off topic but, have you ever wondered what the earths population would be if there were no wars before now? just think of the millions of men and women who if not killed in war would have an average 2.3 children and then their children would have the same and so on... and now think if we cure disease that are major killers, cancer, flu, heart disease, diabetes, etc. it's funny how humans fight the very nature that is built into it, just as everything else on this earth is SELF REGULATING..war is a natural balance to life and population. to resist war and disease is unnatural and unhealthy to the balance of the planet. EMBRACE WAR! Actually, war is no longer a regulating influence. If you look at the major wars fought in the past 50 years they have produced fewer and fewer casualties. To resist disease is COMPLETELY natural.  Our bodies fight it from the first moment we exist. If we went back to older methods of fighting wars we could see it being a regulator again, but who wants to go back to having mass genocide by the sword?  Look at Rwanda for a reference there. AMERICAN Casualties are down because were just so damn good, and were pitted against the most pathetic millitarys on the planet, there casualties however are CATASTROPHIC, the media just doesn't like to report it so they pretend that the enemy isn't takeing any casualties, and it's just us, not so as of a few months ago terrorist casualties in Iraq alone were estimated at about 100,000+, were averageing a kill ratio of approximatly 50-1 our favor, so going by those figures current terrorist casualties should be about 135,000+, that ratio is better than any war in human history.... As for the nukes they saved lives, the libs just don't like to admit that....  Look at the invasion plans based on our experience on the other islands we were anticipateing haveing to exterminate the entire population of Japan (Historical factoid just before the end of the war Japanese civilians were being trained to use PIKES, thats right the Japanease civilians were planning on chargeing us on the beaches, and in the streets with PIKES....), so we planned accordingly, on DAY ONE of the invasion for instance we were planning on dropping about 50,000 tons of Phosgene gas accross the country estimated casualties: atleast 10,000,000, that is just the first hours of day one, like I said the war plan was basicly the extirmination of the population of Japan.... Who was it that said "By the time this war is over the Japanease language will be spoken only in hell...."?.... Oh, and whats Phosgene you ask?...., it's a poisen gas first developed in World War 1 nasty stuff, it reacts with the fluid in your lungs turning it into acid, which then starts to dissolve your lungs, it's slow to, and if you only got a partial dosage your lungs would try and repair themselvs by releaseing mucus, but there would be so much damage they would fill up, makeing you drown on your own fluids, drowning on dry land whoed of thought?...., if you manage to survive that then you still have essentually destroyed lungs which can no longer proccess air, so you'll suffocate, assumeing you manage to survive you'll likely be dragging an oxygen tank behind you the rest of your life, it can take up to 2 days before the symptoms start depending on your dosage, and phosgene is heavy, and tends to linger in low lying areas, kind of like mustard gas, it's capabal of killing weeks after it's used....

We were to use Mustard Agent also, we had thousands of ton's of it stockpiled in the Pacific.   Mustard agent is very persistant unlike Phosgene, we could bomb and shell the hell out of them with Mustard agent and let its persistant qualities maim and kill for weeks before we ever even set foot on Japanese soil.

Quoted: We were to use Mustard Agent also, we had thousands of ton's of it stockpiled in the Pacific.   Mustard agent is very persistant unlike Phosgene, we could bomb and shell the hell out of them with Mustard agent and let its persistant qualities maim and kill for weeks before we ever even set foot on Japanese soil.

So I'm confused-  were we going to hit them with devastating chemicals, and mow down the fearsome pike warriors with our guns, or were we going to loose another 500,000 american lives to take the country?  

were we going to fight japanese military or civilians?   Did they have armor, modern weapons, ammo, fuel?  

Quoted: And, by the way, your comment about "The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb" is pure, unadulterated crap.  That was a pretty reasonable figure, based on the projections of enemy strength in the area of the invasion, past casualty figures during other battles, and an assessment of the Japanese national will to fight.   This article does a much better job of debunking that idea that there wouldn't have been that many casualties than I ever could.

I read that article, it does explain what the numbers "would" have been.

Quoted: Just throwing out some numbers for the crunchers: Civilian Bombing casualties: Dresden 25,000-35,000 KIA Tokyo firebombing 83,000 KIA Hiroshima 70,000-80,000 KIA Nagaskai 35,000-40,000 KIA Conventional bombing of Tokyo KIA was as high as Hiroshima, and less than Nagasaki. WW2 Military KIA Commonwealth 452,000 KIA USA 295,000 KIA Soviet Union 13,600,000 KIA Germany 3,250,000 KIA Japan 1,700,000 KIA An invasion of mainland Japan would have greatly increased the KIA for the USA from the relatively low number of 295,000. A lot of quotes claim 1,000,000 as possible, that would have been an additional 2/3 of the wartime total to date. Was the bombing worth it in order to reduce casualties? I think so.

Even if the projected number had been another 100,000 American casualties, it was more than worth it (in my mind) to fry 150,000  Japanese instead.  One does not win a war by coming out equal with the opponent.

Quoted: Quoted: We were to use Mustard Agent also, we had thousands of ton's of it stockpiled in the Pacific.   Mustard agent is very persistant unlike Phosgene, we could bomb and shell the hell out of them with Mustard agent and let its persistant qualities maim and kill for weeks before we ever even set foot on Japanese soil. So I'm confused-  were we going to hit them with devastating chemicals, and mow down the fearsome pike warriors with our guns, or were we going to loose another 500,000 american lives to take the country?   were we going to fight japanese military or civilians?   Did they have armor, modern weapons, ammo, fuel?

Go out and look up Operations Olympic and Cornet.  It paints a very grim picture for both sides, we would suffer casualties on a scale comparable to the Eastern front and the Japanese race would be virtually wiped out as they would fight to the death as one would only expect less than 5% would surrender.

Quoted: Those 2 bombs you hate so much probably saved 1,000,000+ Allied lives and 10 times that many Japanese lives… dropping them was far more humane a option than the alternative. I don’t really give a flying damn who has ill will about it... it was the right thing to do.

The U.S. probably did not NEED to drop them, but it worked out well in the end and I have no quams with it happeneing.

They were dropped as a experiment to test their capabilities in addition to try to cow the Soviets as much as anything else.  When you guys get a new gun can't you just wait to try it out in the range?

cool pics.

Ask any Vet that survived Okinawa if it was necessary...

~Dg84

You have to look at it in the context of 1945-46.  What was the alternative to the bomb?

Invasion: Well it would certainly kill more Americans than dropping the two bombs, since we didn't loose any there.  If you were Comander-In-Chief and responsible to the American public for ending the war that by 1945 people wanted ended, what is the better choice?  Obviously the bomb.  Would more Japanese have been saved?  I have no doubt that they would have.  There were still a million troops in China that would have to be reduced somehow if the Emperor didn't surrender.  History shows that most of them would have had to have been killed in combat rather than surrender if they were ordered to resist.  The US may have used gas, and that would have taken a heavy toll.  The main block to using gas was FDR, and the possibility of German reprisal at the very end of the war.  With both FDR and the Reich dead, and the experience of the high casualty rate on Okinawa, gas becomes a possible option.  Who knows if we would have used it, but if we did it certainly would have killed alot of Japanese.  So no matter how revisionist you are about history, an invasion would have cost more American lives (which lost ZERO in the bombings) and more Japanese (which lost a couple hundred thousand, both tolls less than some of the conventional strikes had been taking).  

Blockade: We had begun to develop biological and chemicals that would attack rice crops.  The idea was to wipe out the rice crop and starve them out.  The USN had effectively blockaded all traffic, and there wasn't much left of anything to the Japanese Merchent Marine, and less of that ever would get through the blockade.  The 1945 crop had already harvested, so 1946 would be the earliest anything could be done to actively starving them out.  So a "starve out" probably wouldn't have been effective for another year or two (1947-48).  Then what do you do when they surrender?  How do you feed the population without an indigenous rice crop?  Yeah, it's easy to say "fuck em", but planning what to do after the war was actually something that was done back then.  

1948, Berlin blockade...yeah Truman didn't have a crystal ball, but he was smart enough to know the Russians were the next problem.  Say we're still at war in 1948 with the Japanese, as the Soviet Union is as well.  Yet now we have to deal against the Soviets over Berlin or some other "cold war" issue.  It was pretty evident that we were going to have problems with the Soviets.  What if the Soviets make a separate peace with the Japs and start feeding them through the north?  What if their support for Mao Tse Tung and a communist revolution in China lets them cut a deal with the million Japs there in China?  Now we have a Cold War with an allied force of Japan (fully in wartime mode still), the Soviet Union, and a Communist mainland with a million Japanese loose on the mainland of Asia.  While it's doubtful Truman could come up with a detailed scenario as that, to think that the Soviet question and time didn't figure into things would be absurd.  

Also would Truman win an election if the American public found out he could have dropped a bomb and ended the war years earlier with no more US casulties?  Once again, the advantage to dropping the bomb is clear.

Then you have to really ask yourself just how much people knew back then about the A-bomb.  Heck the guys making it knew it would be big, but the lingering effects, etc. no one had a good handle on.  So did Truman and the other key officials really think it was something sinister, or did they figure it was just a big friggin bomb?  If the latter, why would they not use it?  If you're already killing 100,000 in conventional bombings, why would you not do the same more efficiently?  To them, it's just a big bomb.  They don't have the hindsight in 1945 to see it much differently other than a war ending weapon.  If you did figure it was an all powerful weapon, then there's that much more reason to drop it.  It gets the message across better, and it sure sends the Russians a message they can't ignore either.  

I don't think there was alot of angst or worry over the decision to drop the bomb.  I think at the time, it was simply the logical progression of the war and a simple step in 1945.  Given the alternatives, I think it was the right decision at the time.

Quoted: That building is now known as the atomic dome memorial.  Currently, there is a museum and park located in the wedge of land between the rivers.  The park is known as Peace Memorial Park.   The museum has a lot of pictures of the devastation caused by the bomb, both to the city and to the people.  I went there in 1986 and toured the museum and the dome.  Talked to several survivors at the park.  The suffering they endured turned me into a staunch anti nuke individual.  (OK, no prob having them as a deterrent, but I despise the use of them)  It was before, and was in '86 a beautiful city.  The survivors hold no ill will toward the US because of the bomb. (we could learn some things from them ref 7 Dec 41).  They wish we wouldn't have dropped it, but understand why.  If you learn enough about the devastation caused and the suffering cause, you would hate nukes too....

WHHHHAAAAA! Nukes are bad.  I am a student of true history and nukes are good.  Like dying in a firebomb raid or starving is more humane.  We need to have the moral courage to use them again.  The world will be a better place.  BTW,…1985 is calling, it wants their anti nuke propaganda back.

Quoted: Ask any Vet that survived Okinawa if it was necessary... ~Dg84

Take the battlesites tour on Okinawa, or visit Iwo Jima, and ask yourself if it was neccessary.

My dad went to Hiroshima as part of the occupation.  He took alot of pictures (when he went there they had lifted the photo ban that was in place) and it was some serious shit, no doubt.  It's always amazing to see photos that aren't the usual ones you see in the books and History Channel.  

What I always find amazing is just how many people survive a thing like that.  I mean there was nothing left, but people still lived through it.  

Quoted: A very short history lesson.   I just want my fellow forum members to look at the bigger picture. Was the use of the atomic bomb NECESSARY?  No it was not a necessity.  The Japanese Empire was totally defensive and lacked the natural resources to continue to fight.  Had the US chosen to simply "wait them out" using a naval blockade the Japanese would have been starved into submission very quickly.   Operation Downfall (the code name for the invasion of japan) did have ghastly casualty projections.  The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb.   The bomb was used as a show of force to the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan thereby preventing the USSR from dividing and occuping Japan.  The uses of the bomb also had an underling racial motivation.  Many americans considered the Japanese to be sub-human as the prpoaganda of the era demonstrated.   I am not saying the Japanese were civil by any means.  They did commit some of the most inhuman atrocities.   I am simply attempting to state that the use of the bomb was not NECESSARY.

Revisionist historical ignorant horseshit.

After what happen during the invasion of Okinawa Allied commanders were convinced with good reason that casualties during an invasion of Japan would be astronomical.

Propaganda my ass… The 1,000,000 Allied causality figure was the REAL number of believed casualties that were projected would occur during an invasion of Japan BEFORE the Japanese had reinforced the areas around the proposed invasion area… When Allied commanders saw the Japanese moving the additional units in to the proposed invasion area it scared the hell out of them and they then consider the 1,000,000 number to LOW. This belief by the Allied command is well documented and not in doubt.

The projected number of Japanese dead ranged from MILLIONS to TOTAL ANNIHILATION of the whole Japanese people based on what had happen at Okinawa.

Are you completely ignorant of the history of the Pacific War… which was one battle after another of isolated Japanese garrisons (without resources) on islands that continued to fight to virtually the last man and civilian… Take a fucking look at what happen on Saipan.

A monkey could have figured out an invasion of the Japanese main islands would have resulted causalities on both sides that would have been enormous.

Those bombs were without doubt necessary. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender before those bombs were dropped and damn near did not even after.

I strongly recommend folks read "Flyboys", it explains things in detail.

Quoted: Quoted: Ask any Vet that survived Okinawa if it was necessary... ~Dg84 Take the battlesites tour on Okinawa, or visit Iwo Jima, and ask yourself if it was neccessary.

i don't have to ask myself... I know it was neccessary.
I was making that comment for the people that are questioning the actions of our Greatest Generation.
~Dg84

Read some real history.

"With the Old Breed : At Peleliu and Okinawa"

by E. B. Sledge

Quoted: Quoted: They wish we wouldn't have dropped it, but understand why.   Fair enough

It would be if it's true.  The Japanese government doesn't teah history and the majority of Japanese school children are mistified why we would bomb them.

A SF radio host went to Japan and was broadcasting reports of his vacation to his listeners.  He went there on the anniversery and was BESEIGED by japanese school children who wanted to know why the US would do such a horrible thing.  He explained and they were SHOCKED their country started that war.

Want to have real fun?  Find a native Japanese person and ask them about the Rape of Nanking or the Battaan Death March.  It's not ANYWHERE in their history.  They still blame us for the war.  Saying we forced their hands into attack Pearl Harbor

Fuck the Japanese.  We stopped too soon.  The entire main island should have been a lifeless radioactive reminder not to fuck with us.

Quoted: They should have dropped a few more.

We ran out  :(

Quoted: It would be if it's true.  The Japanese government doesn't teah history and the majority of Japanese school children are mistified why we would bomb them. A SF radio host went to Japan and was broadcasting reports of his vacation to his listeners.  He went there on the anniversery and was BESEIGED by japanese school children who wanted to know why the US would do such a horrible thing.  He explained and they were SHOCKED their country started that war. Want to have real fun?  Find a native Japanese person and ask them about the Rape of Nanking or the Battaan Death March.  It's not ANYWHERE in their history.  They still blame us for the war.  Saying we forced their hands into attack Pearl Harbor Fuck the Japanese.  We stopped too soon.  The entire main island should have been a lifeless radioactive reminder not to fuck with us.

I suspect this is close to the truth.
Just like Germany (but at least they know that it happened, they just live in denial)

Quoted: A very short history lesson.   I just want my fellow forum members to look at the bigger picture. Was the use of the atomic bomb NECESSARY?  No it was not a necessity.  The Japanese Empire was totally defensive and lacked the natural resources to continue to fight.  Had the US chosen to simply "wait them out" using a naval blockade the Japanese would have been starved into submission very quickly.   Operation Downfall (the code name for the invasion of japan) did have ghastly casualty projections.  The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb.   The bomb was used as a show of force to the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan thereby preventing the USSR from dividing and occuping Japan.  The uses of the bomb also had an underling racial motivation.  Many americans considered the Japanese to be sub-human as the prpoaganda of the era demonstrated.   I am not saying the Japanese were civil by any means.  They did commit some of the most inhuman atrocities.   I am simply attempting to state that the use of the bomb was not NECESSARY.

No, they would have licked their wounds.  Then offer a"surrender" similiar to the treaty of Versailes.  We probably would have had World War 3 in 1970.  The total surrender and destruction of their Bushido culture was the only thing that kept the peace.   Without the bomb, the Samuari would still rule Tokyo.  

Quoted: Who was it that said "By the time this war is over the Japanease language will be spoken only in hell...."?....

I believe it was Nimitz when he looked upon the destruction of Pearl Harbor.

Quoted: The sad thing is that Hiroshima wasn't enough of a lesson for them. We had to nuke 'em twice before they got the picture. I hold no ill will towards the Japanese today, but they got what they deserved in '45.

Tough little fuckers, they were.

Quoted: The U.S. probably did not NEED to drop them, but it worked out well in the end and I have no quams with it happeneing.

I want what you're smoking.

Quoted: Quoted: It would be if it's true.  The Japanese government doesn't teah history and the majority of Japanese school children are mistified why we would bomb them. A SF radio host went to Japan and was broadcasting reports of his vacation to his listeners.  He went there on the anniversery and was BESEIGED by japanese school children who wanted to know why the US would do such a horrible thing.  He explained and they were SHOCKED their country started that war. Want to have real fun?  Find a native Japanese person and ask them about the Rape of Nanking or the Battaan Death March.  It's not ANYWHERE in their history.  They still blame us for the war.  Saying we forced their hands into attack Pearl Harbor Fuck the Japanese.  We stopped too soon.  The entire main island should have been a lifeless radioactive reminder not to fuck with us. I suspect this is close to the truth. Just like Germany (but at least they know that it happened, they just live in denial)

I assume that what is being referred to is the history text books that are heavily revised.
For your information, only two see ETA below teachers out of whatever number of teachers in Japan decided to use them.

At least get the facts right before making statements like "not ANYWHERE in their history".

ETA   Did a little bit of research, as far as I can tell by googleing for 10 minutes, 8 teachers tried to use the text books, 5 actually did do so.

ETA2
Here's the address of the nutcase company who publishes the text book.

Not sure if the Japanese characters will show up on all computers, so I made a jpeg of it.
Please feel free to use it as you like

To the mods, this info can be found easily from public sources via a search engine.
Also since the address is of a company, I don't think that it violates #5 of the CoC.
If it does, I'm sorry and please remove it.

Quoted: Quoted: And, by the way, your comment about "The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb" is pure, unadulterated crap.  That was a pretty reasonable figure, based on the projections of enemy strength in the area of the invasion, past casualty figures during other battles, and an assessment of the Japanese national will to fight.   This article does a much better job of debunking that idea that there wouldn't have been that many casualties than I ever could. I read that article, it does explain what the numbers "would" have been.

Then you didn't read it close enough. It specifically states that Harry Truman quoting Marshall's estimate of 1M dead was based on MacArthur's & Marshall's estimates, and how both of those military professionals arrived at that estimate.  See page 2 of the document (page 87 of the magazine), starting with the heading "The Numbers Game."

Quoted: Quoted: A very short history lesson.   I just want my fellow forum members to look at the bigger picture. Was the use of the atomic bomb NECESSARY?  No it was not a necessity.  The Japanese Empire was totally defensive and lacked the natural resources to continue to fight.  Had the US chosen to simply "wait them out" using a naval blockade the Japanese would have been starved into submission very quickly.   Operation Downfall (the code name for the invasion of japan) did have ghastly casualty projections.  The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb.   The bomb was used as a show of force to the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan thereby preventing the USSR from dividing and occuping Japan.  The uses of the bomb also had an underling racial motivation.  Many americans considered the Japanese to be sub-human as the prpoaganda of the era demonstrated.   I am not saying the Japanese were civil by any means.  They did commit some of the most inhuman atrocities.   I am simply attempting to state that the use of the bomb was not NECESSARY. Your thesis is deeply flawed and typical of post-modern revisionism so prevalent among those with little grasp of the true facts surrounding Operation Downfall.  Clearly you have little knowledge of the   last six months of the war and the rationale for using atomic weapons rather than simply waiting out the Japanese. Please get a copy of Richard B. Frank's great book, "Downfall : The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire".  A superbly done historical work base upon recently released decrypts and outstanding research. The use of the atomic bombs saved Japan as a nation state.  It saved the Japanese people.  Their use plus the refulsal of the Soviet Union to intervene in their behalf, instead attacking in Manchuria, were the final nails in the coffin for the militaristic rulers of the Empire.  Had we not used the bombs, the war would have dragged on for at least another six months and the estimated casualties would have probably been well in excess for the Allies...and the Japanese as a race would have been all but expunged. Please go do some detailed research.  You are incorrect:  The path the Japanese chose absolutely mandated the use of the atomic weapons.

Maybe you should pay closer attention rather than hurl insults and take pot shots.  

My point was it was not NECESSARY.  Definition of NECESSARY = essential, indispensable, or requisite, unavoidable.  

By stating that it WAS necessary you are in effect stating that the Allies could NOT have defeated Japan WITHOUT using the atomic bomb.  

Further, I have no doubt that the author you cited did a fantastic job with his book.  What I am stating is that many reasons people use today for the justification of the use of the atomic bomb are flawed.  

The Allies, according to my understanding of history, could have defeated Japan without using the atomic bomb.  This process of invasion and occupation would have cost many more lives.  

Japan had few natural resources which it could have used to continue to fight.  Japan invaded and conquered nations in the Pacific ring to gain vital natural resources such as oil, rubber, iron ore, etc.  

As for understanding the last six months of the war, well we can discuss this in great length and argue and rebutt until the thread is locked.  We all will agree that Japan was using desperation tactics in an attempt to defend their islands.  

Many authors who devote the necessary time and effort into writing a book OFTEN have a predetermined point they are attempting to prove or defend.  Maybe we all should examine Japanese sources from the era to guess the amount of time it would have taken.  

Do I support the use of the atomic bomb in Japan?  Yes i do.  I was simply stating that it was not REQUIRED to defeat Japan.  I was also providing other reasons for the use other than the accepted defence that an invasion would cost 1,000,000 + allied lives.  There were political as well as military reasons for using the Bombs and anyone who says there were not isnt very knowledgabe of the era.

Quoted: (we could learn some things from them ref 7 Dec 41).

I have to disagree.

There is a differance between an act carried out in an openly declared war, and an attack carried out when you are suposedly at peace with a country.

The attack of  Dec 7th 1941 is much like the attacks on 9/11/01, an attack that can not be forgiven or forgotten.


Anyway back on topic, that had to have taken a hel;l of a lot of dedication and time to do.

Quoted: Quoted: A very short history lesson.   I just want my fellow forum members to look at the bigger picture. Was the use of the atomic bomb NECESSARY?  No it was not a necessity.  The Japanese Empire was totally defensive and lacked the natural resources to continue to fight.  Had the US chosen to simply "wait them out" using a naval blockade the Japanese would have been starved into submission very quickly.   Operation Downfall (the code name for the invasion of japan) did have ghastly casualty projections.  The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb.   The bomb was used as a show of force to the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan thereby preventing the USSR from dividing and occuping Japan.  The uses of the bomb also had an underling racial motivation. Many americans considered the Japanese to be sub-human as the prpoaganda of the era demonstrated.   I am not saying the Japanese were civil by any means.  They did commit some of the most inhuman atrocities.   I am simply attempting to state that the use of the bomb was not NECESSARY. For starters, first person in a debate to play the race card, loses. Secondly, about your "historical" discussion.  While you're partly right that a side benefit of the use of atomic weapons may have been to make the Soviet Union not enter the war against Japan, there is no primary source evidence that I am aware of to prove that.  The PRIMARY consideration, per both Truman and MacArthur's own notes & admissions, was a quick termination of the war without an invasion of the Japanese home islands.   The Japanese empire was NOT defeated and lacking the will to fight.  Every indication, from both Japanese and American sources at the time, indicate the Japanese would have fought even more fiercely for their home islands than they had at Okinawa or Iwo Jima.  A naval blockade would NOT have worked, first, because blockades are notoriously inefficient, especially for an ISLAND nation, but also because of the Japanese pride and resourcefulness--it would have simply given the Japanese a chance to regroup from a national morale perspective.  No, we had to knock the fight out of them COMPLETELY--which meant total victory.  After all, that's the only way you win a total war. You're technically right--dropping the bombs was not necessary in the fact that we didn't have any other choice--but of the choices we DID have, that was the least costly in terms of lives and treasure--the only standard that matters.  It had an additional benefit of saving the ENEMY lives and treasure--and while that's usually not a consideration in the kind of total war waged in the Pacific, it was important to understand that the Japanese could teach the Russians a thing or two about scorched-earth policies, they were that good at it. And, by the way, your comment about "The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb" is pure, unadulterated crap.  That was a pretty reasonable figure, based on the projections of enemy strength in the area of the invasion, past casualty figures during other battles, and an assessment of the Japanese national will to fight.   This article does a much better job of debunking that idea that there wouldn't have been that many casualties than I ever could.

Did you read the segment titled TIME TO INVADE it the article you cited?

Quoted: Quoted: A very short history lesson.   I just want my fellow forum members to look at the bigger picture. Was the use of the atomic bomb NECESSARY?  No it was not a necessity.  The Japanese Empire was totally defensive and lacked the natural resources to continue to fight.  Had the US chosen to simply "wait them out" using a naval blockade the Japanese would have been starved into submission very quickly.   Operation Downfall (the code name for the invasion of japan) did have ghastly casualty projections.  The 1,000,000 as suggested is actually American propaganda to justify the use of the bomb.   The bomb was used as a show of force to the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan thereby preventing the USSR from dividing and occuping Japan.  The uses of the bomb also had an underling racial motivation.  Many americans considered the Japanese to be sub-human as the prpoaganda of the era demonstrated.   I am not saying the Japanese were civil by any means.  They did commit some of the most inhuman atrocities.   I am simply attempting to state that the use of the bomb was not NECESSARY. Revisionist historical ignorant horseshit.  Revisionist yes, historical yes, IGNORANT horseshit NO. After what happen during the invasion of Okinawa Allied commanders were convinced with good reason that casualties during an invasion of Japan would be astronomical. We all agree casulaties would be high.   Propaganda my ass… The 1,000,000 Allied causality figure was the REAL number of believed casualties that were projected would occur during an invasion of Japan BEFORE the Japanese had reinforced the areas around the proposed invasion area… When Allied commanders saw the Japanese moving the additional units in to the proposed invasion area it scared the hell out of them and they then consider the 1,000,000 number to LOW. This belief by the Allied command is well documented and not in doubt. The projected number of Japanese dead ranged from MILLIONS to TOTAL ANNIHILATION of the whole Japanese people based on what had happen at Okinawa.   Are you completely ignorant of the history of the Pacific War… NO. which was one battle after another of isolated Japanese garrisons (without resources) on islands that continued to fight to virtually the last man and civilian… Take a fucking look at what happen on Saipan.  No need to curse do try to debate with a little class. A monkey could have figured out an invasion of the Japanese main islands would have resulted causalities on both sides that would have been enormous.  No one is doubting this statement.  My point was the number was inflated that is all.  In addition I agree that just one additional Allied fighting man killed during the war would have been tragic.   Those bombs were without doubt necessary. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender before those bombs were dropped and damn near did not even after.  A small, highly motivated group did not wish to surrender you are correct.

500+ japanese officers commited suicide after the surrender.  

Quoted: Fuck the Japanese.  We stopped too soon.  The entire main island should have been a lifeless radioactive reminder not to fuck with us.

+eleventy billion

Note to self, build my dream home out of reinforced concrete and brick, not out of wood.

Quoted: They should have dropped a few more.

yeah, they should have dropped a few more to finish the job, they also should have executed emperor Hirohito for his war crimes but they let him go

once an enemy always an enemy

the war will never be over until the J@panese are annihilated!

Im sure the Chinese would love to get some pay back right now

the J@ps got what they deserved, I have no pity for them

Quoted: The thing is, if the US had run a conventional bombing raid using the firebombs the US used in bombing the other Japanese cities, just as many people would have died in Hiroshima. At the end of the day, literally, just as many Japanese died, but the war was stopped sooner. If the invasion of Japan had occured as originally planned, a typhoon would have hit just as the fleet came in. A major Typhoon struck the Sea of Japan on the same dates as the original invasion was planned...

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. That would have surely lent credence to their concept of a 'divine wind', huh?

We Americans might be stupid and lazy in the eyes of the Japanese, but as the T-shirt says, "We build one hell of an A-bomb!"

I'm not amazed with our outcome-based education that some people would hold the belief that they can second guess a decision made by our brightest minds based upon information that still might not be completely and totally released to the public.  Nuking the Japs was our best shot at letting them know of the hell that was to come visit their country.  Thankfully, even the kooks running Japan figured out that continued resistance and warmongering would result in the annhiliation of their population (and of the leaders themselves).  We saved most of Japan and their race by nuking their asses.  Not to mention a couple million American lives.

As for the hard-core kook Jap officers committing suicide, they did it not only because of their fucked-up sense of 'honor', but also because they knew that we would likely be executing them if they were caught.

Today, should we get into a shooting war with the Islamicists, I'm not sure we should be so merciful to the Muslims.

John

John

Quoted: If you learn enough about the devastation caused and the suffering cause, you would hate nukes too....

I don't hate inanimate objects.  I hate the people who cause others to use these objects.
This goes for guns, nukes, knives, etc....