Atomic Bomb Poll.

[CdocZ]

In terms of pure numbers, from the projections that were made as to the casualties that would result from dropping nuclear warheads vs. the project number of casualties for an invasion, the warheads were the better choice.

Even more so if you consider the mentality the Japanese culture was bringing to the war.

However, I cannot possibly accept the usage of such weaponry under those circumstances.

America could have simply blocked off Japan from trade in the Pacific, and laid on a sort of national level siege. America did not have to take a "total obliteration" approach to knocking Japan out of the war, especially when it was clear that we were able win and the matter of how America won was a choice that could be made.

I understand it was war, but just because it is such does not mean that you must break your opponent down at whatever cost. Yes, many American soldiers were saved. But that should not have been a necessary issue in the first place, given the many victories that gave America a very strong advantage by that point in the war.

Note: If I remember correctly, did America not push Japan towards war by denying trade for oil and other resources on which Japan depended on America for?

[Zytek_Fan]

I remember watching a program about the bombs and if they didn't drop the bombs, there would have been an invasive of hundreds of thousands of troops, and the death toll for both sides would have gone up immensely.

[roosterjuicer]

Note: If I remember correctly, did America not push Japan towards war by denying trade for oil and other resources on which Japan depended on America for?

correct. however I believe japan had already started being very aggressive to its neighbors in the area and we cut off their fuel and stuff as a diplomatic measure to get them NOT to go to war both with us and with its neighbors.

[Kitdy]

Another thought that comes to me, Was it really a secret that the U.S. had the bomb until Hiroshima? They conducted tests before hand, some in the pacific, and while back then countries did not have spy satellites and other means to get information like we have now, I wonder if it wasn't still known whether or not the U.S. at least had some new bomb.

To my knowledge, this is entirely untrue. The early Manhattan project developed 3 initial bombs - Gadget - tested at the Trinity test site in new Mexico, Little Boy, which was dropped on Hiroshima, and Fat Man, which was dropped on Nagasaki. After Nagasaki, the United States' (and at therefore, world's) nuclear arsenal was entirely exhausted and if Japan had not surrendered, I suppose that the US would have to wait to build yet another bomb.

There is no fathomable way that the Japanese knew about the test - the USSR may have known due to Klaus Fuchs but I don't have the full info for this.

[NSXType-R]

if my memory serves me correctly (which is rare) werent the firebombings of Tokyo more devastating as far as civilian casualties goes than the atomic bombings?

Absolutely correct.

The firebombings were much much more destructive than the two atomic weapons combined.

The nature of the Japanese culture meant that a full on assault of mainland Japan would have cost much more American lives. They had to be shocked into surrendering to finish the war quickly. Either way we would have won, but the atomic weapons made it much quicker.

Actually, Secretary of War Stimson had a big deal in choosing where the bomb was to be dropped because he had decided against Tokyo for its cultural significance.

[Kitdy]

I remember watching a program about the bombs and if they didn't drop the bombs, there would have been an invasive of hundreds of thousands of troops, and the death toll for both sides would have gone up immensely.

Did you read my above post? Nuke Tokyo Bay and scare the Japanese - that would have sufficed as a warning, why hit a civilian target?

Answer: to scare the USSR.

[scottie300z]

To my knowledge, this is entirely untrue. The early Manhattan project developed 3 initial bombs - Gadget - tested at the Trinity test site in new Mexico, Little Boy, which was dropped on Hiroshima, and Fat Man, which was dropped on Nagasaki. After Nagasaki, the United States' (and at therefore, world's) nuclear arsenal was entirely exhausted and if Japan had not surrendered, I suppose that the US would have to wait to build yet another bomb.

There is no fathomable way that the Japanese knew about the test - the USSR may have known due to Klaus Fuchs but I don't have the full info for this.

Ah okay, that time line clears a large bit up for me.

[Rockefella]

I feel like the U.S. Had a choice between bad and worse. They chose bad. I also voted no opinion.

[cmcpokey]

Actually, Secretary of War Stimson had a big deal in choosing where the bomb was to be dropped because he had decided against Tokyo for its cultural significance.

Additionally, in preparation for the bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been spared the conventional bombings for several months. This allowed their industrial sector to continue to produce, and it gave the public in those cities the feeling that they were safe from the bombings. This made the bombings that much more severe than if they were to bomb tokyo after the numerous bombings it had already incurred.

[roosterjuicer]

Did you read my above post? Nuke Tokyo Bay and scare the Japanese - that would have sufficed as a warning, why hit a civilian target?

Answer: to scare the USSR.

sounds a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to me. are you wearing a tinfoil hat right now?

[clutch-monkey]

if my memory serves me correctly (which is rare) werent the firebombings of Tokyo more devastating as far as civilian casualties goes than the atomic bombings?

yes i remember reading that too.
also i think the emperor wanted peace but the military/industrial magnates didn't? like there was a real contest for power at the time or something.

i can't say yes or no either way because i wasn't there, and nuclear weapons were still an unknown, sort of.

[Kitdy]

sounds a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to me. are you wearing a tinfoil hat right now?

I am not a believer in conspiracy theories but heard this idea thrown around - not sure how committed to it I am but it is a pretty interesting idea no less.

[NSXType-R]

Additionally, in preparation for the bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been spared the conventional bombings for several months. This allowed their industrial sector to continue to produce, and it gave the public in those cities the feeling that they were safe from the bombings. This made the bombings that much more severe than if they were to bomb tokyo after the numerous bombings it had already incurred.

The death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than the firebombings of Tokyo. How would it be more severe? Yes, they were caught completely off guard, but I wouldn't call it severe.

Obviously any bombing conventional or not is not good, but they don't really compare.

[RacingManiac]

Not only Tokyo, its also less than the Firebombing of Dresden, Germany......where most victims were people who fled the Eastern front....

[Kitdy]

What I always find interesting about World War II civilian deaths are a few things and how they are interpreted. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are frequently brought up as examples and only certain people can think of say Dresden, or the Blitz, or any of the other major bombings in Europe. The Holocaust where 6 million Jews died is frequently mentioned, but the other 3-5 million other victims of genocide in Germany are often forgotten. What about the Red Army's war crimes? Or the Japanese slaughter of what, 10 million+ Chinese? I feel these things are not given the attention that they deserve, and frankly, the fixation on Jewish life lost in World War II only gives fuel to the Neo-nazis fire.

Not only Tokyo, its also less than the Firebombing of Dresden, Germany......where most victims were people who fled the Eastern front....

Ninja'd.