In order to defeat the Japanese ability to make war, ultimately their will to make war must have been destroyed. This is what took not one, but both atomic bombs.
I don’t see how this follows.
Inasmuch as war can be humane (which isn’t saying much), I’d easily rate a quick, emotionally shattering approach to breaking the enemy’s will as moreso than a slow, painful starvation that those in charge might more easily shield their eyes from.
It’s one of the most concentrated acts of American terrorism. War apologists make me sick.
On one hand, the Americans DID have reason to fight Japan (for once). The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war, meaning the NAP had in effect been violated. Considering the circumstances, they had full right to defeat the Japanese Army and Navy.
The bombs, however, weren’t needed. By the time they were used, Japan was boned regardless of what the US did. At any rate, they didn’t need to bomb a city, they could have easily bombed an ocean or military base.
Making Japan, Germany, US, etc. into an acting being is a false organismic analogy. You have to look at the actions of individuals. We really can’t solve these problems adequately without reverting to a statist way of thinking (and that obviously isn’t adequate anyhow).
That Germany declared war first is true, but keep in mind that US ships had been stalking and depth-charging German subs in the North Atlantic from months in the vain hope that the germans would buy the Lusitania hook again. Knowing that German subs where fired upon and preferred not to fight back (due to political concerns) for months could place that ‘Germany declared war first” on a different light.
As for Japan, why oh why did they attack Pearl Harbor if a mere year before they wanted to negotiate with the US their pull out of China? Could it possibly be that the US was jailing its own citizens for daring to trade oil with Japan (cutting 90% of its supply)?
Regarding the Chinese guerilla idea; it is precisely aimed at minimizing civilian deaths. Would Chinese paid bands harm their own people? Or the Japanese invader? If the soviets managed to organize, in just two years, guerrilla movement in the entire occupied Europe, I’m sure that the Americans could have managed the same in China (with just the same geopolitical bonuses that the Soviets reaped).
Now again, you say that Japanese would have never accepted defeat and US terms, so burning Tokyo was cool. But I reiterate, the US navy could have just proceeded to establish a naval exclusions zone around Japan, with no treaty at all, and ask for all merchant ships due to and out from Japan to pas in two or three controlled point. The benefits of such a move could have been:
sparing an invasion
ending Japan’s mean to make war by controlling imports and physically blasting every ship under construction: Japan would have ceased to be a meaningful power
turned out a nice revenue form tariffs collection
unnerve the japs and keep then under constant siege, destroying their will to fight
achieve the status of total dominator of the country, by commanding its food resources, without firing a shot for decades to come.
not killing hundreds of thousands of civilians
The fact that Japan was an island, and not e very big one either, allowed the US to deal with it in ways which would have been impossible with Germany. The way I see it, should a war have been unavoidable, and should the domination of Japan had been a priority, than a naval blockade would have given every satisfaction that an invasion and/or nuking cities did, with a fraction of the cost, both material and human.
Then perhaps you should have read my post in more detail, for then you’d have seen my rationale. For a mindset that is decidedly opposed to surrender there is a real chance that any single incident of wide-spread destruction in the face of this can be brushed off, however misguidedly, as a one-off circumstance. Proving that this incident can occur as many times as necessary and with regularity removes this uncertainty factor; the only thing that can come from refusal to surrender is the destruction of the nation. The decision to use both bombs then is largely a matter of not taking chances with this mindgame scenario.
It’s one of the most concentrated acts of American terrorism. War apologists make me sick.
Now I suspect you’re simply trying to misinterpret my position for your convenience, which would certainly explain how short and particular your post is. You can look through all of my posts in this topic so far and find that the justifiability of the war as a whole was never even the subject to begin with. The only thing in question is the justifiability of the implements used to end the war in the Pacific compared to the alternatives. All I ever did was make the argument that compared to less controversial possibilities as conventional invasion or blockades, the decision to use the atomic bombs represents a less wasteful course of action in terms of time, lives and resources to achieve the given objective of Japanese surrender.
Or would you have sentenced a sizable chunk of the mainland’s population to die the old fashioned way to avoid resorting to “terrorism?” I’m curious as to what you believe would have been a preferable way to address the scenario.
I am absolutely interested in these figures of “how many dead were avoided by doing X instead of Y as all the exhaustive options”.
But meanwhile, I have to keep up with this reasoning of inevitability of killing and war, while seeing that Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Sweden, and large parts of Europe had absolutely nothing to do with the war, and did just okay.
Obviously the world’s strongest industrial power had something to fear if it stayed back on its own continent, and stayed away from two tiny enemies seperated by entire oceans on other continents!
Then perhaps you should have read my post in more detail, for then you’d have seen my rationale.
Your rationale is pretty clear, but I disagree with it. Besides the whole fact that you even question the justifiability of the actions, I question whether your thesis that a single incident would be brushed off because the bombs were dropped at the same time. Anyhow, nobody can win a war of opinion over historical analysis.
Now I suspect you’re simply trying to misinterpret my position for your convenience, which would certainly explain how short and particular your post is.
Sorry for valuing my time. I made a lengthy response in the above disarmament thread, debunking your claim that “safe nukes” are in development and false accusations of special pleading, to which you never responded.
Operations Coronet and Olympia would have cost over 1 million American lives to execute. Moreover, estimates are that over 4 million Japanese military personnel and civilians would have died in the invasion of honshu and kyushu (sic).
In addition, a blockade would not have addressed the million plus well armed Japanese combatants still fighting across Asia and the Pacific. not to mention the extreme hardship imposed on the Japanese people during a lengthy blockade. For example, al qaida attacked the USA primarily due to the sanctions on Iraq and the costs imposed on the Iraqi women and children.
to those that claim that Japan would have surrendered in the absence of the bombs, this is not supported by the facts on the ground. Namely the difficulty the emperor had in convincing the military elite to end the war even after the bombs were dropped. For example, the emperor in his first address to the people specifically stated that the “terrible weapon” was the justification for capitulation to the Americans.
Lastly, since the USA demonstrated its resolve to use nuclear weaponry, it created a dynamic that minimized the motivation of nation-state adversaries to attack American interests at home and abroad. Note that it was not until a faith based, non-state actor appeared on the scene that America was subject to an attack on its homeland.
This asymetrical form of warfare has essentially negated the USA dominance in strategic weaponry, but it took over 50 years for potential enemies to figure this out and implement this strategy.
Your rationale is pretty clear, but I disagree with it. Besides the whole fact that you even question the justifiability of the actions, I question whether your thesis that a single incident would be brushed off because the bombs were dropped at the same time.
You might want to check your calendar again. August 6 and August 9 of 1945 are not the same time. Even if by some reality warping miracle they were, the simple notion of one is a fluke, two is a pattern would still provide a clear line of thought process on the part of the planners.
Sorry for valuing my time. I made a lengthy response in the above disarmament thread, debunking your claim that “safe nukes” are in development and false accusations of special pleading, to which you never responded.
And here you are repeating your folly, for I recall this thread and not only did I never make such a claim that “safe nukes” (a term of your own coinage and definition, no less) were already in development in a way that would please your standards of non-aggression, but I did read through your response and saw no need to continue. Like your previous entries, you made the exact same mistake in presuming that the only potential use of any kind of nuclear device is widespread aggressive destruction, and then proceeded to back your claim with, and this is the kicker here: non-sequitr examples of abuse of nuclear devices by government, an inherently aggressive institution that current holds monopoly powers over the development and deployment of the devices. That you would only find aggressive examples of the use of nuclear device in that case was almost painfully obvious, and despite your denial of such things this very specific set of rules in the form of
Possessing an object is not inconsistent with NAP
While also objects, nukes are an exception because they have only ever be used to indiscriminately destroy
Therefore, nukes are not consistent with NAP
Is very much a case of special pleading because have does not necessarily imply can.
I suppose I must apologize to you for valuing my time as well, but then why continue to argue against an opinion that has already been beaten? And it seems I’m about to make that figure 2-0 in my favor!
So, cut off from Japan, with no HQ, with no food or supplies and in the midst of a very hostile population (due to the well-known proclivity of the Japs for civilian massacres), with no air or naval support, with the constant fear for the well-being of their relatives and you think that Japan offshore troops would have lasted more than a month if a blockade would have been imposed?!
A roughly similar situation happened with Italian troops stationed in Albania after Italy surrendered: they sold their weapons, and begged the locals to find them a way to get back home. So, in case of a blockade the Japanese troops abroad would have vanished within months without a single US life being lost.
That is true but the allies could have easily adjusted their blockade to the kind of war they wanted to fight. If, strangely enough, they would have liked to spare civilian sufferings they could have just allowed foodstuff and clothing to get through, but no steel and other such things (or only limited amounts). Now it is true that Japan would have hovered around subsistence farming/fishing levels as long as the blockade persisted, but I believe that civilian suffering would have been minimized and a negotiated surrender could have been possible after a year or so.
I wasn’t around for it, but I feel perfectly fine with us having done it. I think that If they weren’t willing to except the potential risks of war, they shouldn’t have fought us.
I also haven’t been able to find any binding international laws that prohibited the US from dropping the bombs.
Of course the bombs were absolutely devastating and the damage they caused was enormous. It’s regrettable that it came to that but it did. So it goes.
The argument is that the japanese would fight to the last man, and rake up huge casualites on both sides. If the japanese don’t care if 800k of their people die during combat, why would they care if 240k die from bombings? This position, must obviously be false.
Referencing operation downfall’s high casualties as a reason for preferring the bomb is faulty too. There’s no reason you can’t come up with a third alternative, maybe just siege japan indefinitely with a small number of ships (destroying harbors) until capitulation.
But this is all in line with America’s foolhardy approach to war, which is to continue killing untill the enemy submits. But if you break your opponent’s arms and legs, and he still won’t sign a peace treaty, you can still go home and have peace. Just because he hasn’t agreed to stop fighting doesn’t mean he actually can
Also peace treaties don’t gaurantee anything. Its just paper. Can be broken at any time. So rather than wait for a peace treaty to be signed, you can just pack up and go home early. Although i’m sure this doesn’t make the military’s balls feel as big.
Bloom, do you reflexively just buy all the government’s propaganda? Would you buy it someone killed a whole bunch of people but then said “I had to do it or else”, despite numerous witnesses to the contrary?
I don’t really care if they “had to do it or not” the point is that they could do it legally and it was a solid way to put the nail in the coffin. End of story as far as I’m concerned. It’s like asking “why choke someone unconscious after they’ve tapped in a fight?” Because it will make them think twice the next time they think about fighting you.
A roughly similar situation happened with Italian troops stationed in Albania after Italy surrendered: they sold their weapons, and begged the locals to find them a way to get back home. So, in case of a blockade the Japanese troops abroad would have vanished within months without a single US life being lost.–Merlin
Of course, they would have lasted far more than a month.
the japanese bushidists were no italians. Many japanese solidiers and units fought for years before surrendering. There were instances of soliders in the phillipinnes fighting for decades before surrendering.
Moreover, we had to contend with the USSR. A protracted conflict/blockade of japan would have dangerously impacted a far greater threat from the statist in moscow and china.
IN summary, all austrian theorists should understand that to misdirect resources to a protracted struggle over japan would have played into the hands of statists in russia and china that threatened the entire globe.
the bombs got the job done quickly and with far less loss of life and long term complications than the alternatives offered on this thread.
The argument is that the japanese would fight to the last man, and rake up huge casualites on both sides. If the japanese don’t care if 800k of their people die during combat, why would they care if 240k die from bombings? This position, must obviously be false.-- snowflake
your argument misses the point.
for example, the japanese leadership wanted to avoid unconditional surrender. THere is every reason that they could have by the threat of over 1 MILLION AMERICAN DEAD from an invasion of the home islands.
The bomb was a horrific terror weapon that more than balanced the threat of over a million dead US troops. For example, the japanese feared the bomb more than we feared an invasion of the mainland islands, hence the japanese hawks were compelled to surrender primarily at the behest of the emperor who was specifically swayed by the atomic bombs:
““This war has now lasted four years, and despite the best efforts of the military, the government and the Japanese people, this war has not been successful for Japan. The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. If we continue to fight this war, this weapon will destroy the Japanese nation and bring about the total extinction of the human race.””-- emperor of japan, 1945
moreover, bloom’s comment on the detterent effect of the use of the bomb is noteworthy. It was not until 2001 that the American mainland was attacked, and that was by a non-state faith based actor that could not be deterred by nuclear weaponry. using the bomb demonstrated to the nations of the world that the USA had both the will and the means to use WMD’s to protect its interests. Without this dynamic in place we may not have won the cold war and the world would be far less free today.
lastly, as I stated in a previous post, the cold war was emerging. THe West did not need to be distracted by an ineffective, inhumane, and protracted blockade regime that almost never works in the absence of military force.
What you state is a lie that you have swallowed. But lets say that it was the honest to god truth. So what? It stil does not “justify” the use of the bomb even in your own consequentialist terms.
There was no reason to demand of Japan to “surrender”. Unconditional surrender is a something pulled out of thin air by the USA specifically for this war. No one in their right mind ever went around demanding “uncondition surrender”. You had actual demands that the enemy was supposed to fullfil, you did not demand carte blanche (and then did not even exercise it once the enemy submitted).
Before the war the US demands were for Japan to stop being expansionist. When the war started that was a good opportunity to increase the demands for them not only to stop expanding, but to relinquish their existing empire (Korea, Formoza, Manchuria), but everything beyond that was incredibly dumb in terms of realpolitik.
Japanese eventually de facto accepted to unconditionaly surrender but there is no doubt they would have accepted a normal peace settlement (which in terms of territory would not have left the with any more than what they were left with as it was) before that. It would have pre-empted a Soviet intervention in China and instead of the Soviets arming Mao from the captured Japanese stock, you would have the Japanese with orders to surrender to Chiang - a much more preferable outcome for America.
But I guess in the minds of brilliant power players loosing China and wasting tens of thousands of Americans lives is worth ensuring the surrender-phobic Japanese not save face?
