A-bomb handwringing

[Bosco-d-gama]

August 6th is around the corner and already I’ve seen a few articles lamenting the decision and pining about the travails of the ‘survivors’. There’s no question that WW2 was horrific. It was horrific before we were involved. And it is not unusual for scholars and lay people alike to ponder the choices made during such hard times. But there’s this tendency to flail America endlessly for the use of the atomic weaponry, as though Japan was a peace loving nation that was mercilessly slaughtered. Rarely, as in VERY rarely do you ever see articles about the horrors facing America and Americans leading up to the decision to deploy such a ghastly weapon. My father-in-law was at Okinawa. He knew 1st hand what to expect if we actually invaded Japan.

 

Regardless we cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Given what we know now atomic weaponry would most certainly have evolved somewhere besides America and perhaps used in anger in some other wartime application. I am writing this only because of the apologists who annually set about handwringing over this ‘’travesty’’. They were not there. They were not in Shanghai nor in Manila. Instead of soliciting America to knee bending guilt trips they should be honest. The postage stamp should show the Enola Gay and it should read, ‘’we’re sorry you made us do this to you.’’

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/bloody-hell-okinawa-180975148/

[JJkizak]

There are about 2 million grateful US soldiers that will agree with your assessments.

JJK

[WMcD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_Atomic_Bomb

 

This is a tome but I slogged through it years ago.  The resolution of moralizing is covered.

 

WMcD

[pbphoto]

Can you imagine the outcry over the alternative?  If Truman had decided to invade Japan and then a year later, it was leaked to social media the AP and UPI that the A-bomb was available in the US toolbox, but went unused?

[Mallette]

Whole thing is a non-debate. Far more were killed by conventional bombing. Many times more  would have  died without the bomb. Once you are in a war,  you kill people and break things until the  other side stops. Humane warfare is a contradiction in terms.

Dave

[babadono]

2 hours ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

My father-in-law was at Okinawa.

My father was on Okinawa staging for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. He never talked much about the war. He was in the signal corps as a photographer and as such was never on the frontlines. The one time he did talk was when I was a young idealistic doofus and mentioned this same drivel about how horrible it was that we dropped the A bombs on the Japanese. He said you should be thanking your lucky stars that we did drop it, otherwise you(meaning me) may not be here. No doubt about it, if we had had to invade the Japanese islands millions would have died or been injured. Americans and Japanese both.

[Bosco-d-gama]

In hindsight many aver that Japan was militarily beaten and that all we needed to do was go into a siege mode and starved them into submission. No invasion needed, just time and due diligence in a tight blockade. In a perfect world maybe that would’ve worked. But in 1945 not so much. For starts Japan would’ve allowed millions to die of starvation. Life was cheap for them. 2ndly many forget that the USSR was very aggressively engaging Japan and had occupied some of their northern islands. Stalin did not want victory as much as expansion - he wanted land and control. In fact it has been suggested that Japan surrendered more from fear of the USSR invading than from the atomic bombs. Stalin would not have agreed to a siege and if allowed would’ve enveloped Japan in to the USSR sphere of control.

 

Another difficult issue in this arena is that today’s Japan is not all that contrite about their WW2 activities. They do not bow their heads in shame as many expect from atomic America. Interesting contrast there. 

[geoff.]

I just had a similar discussion with my teenage son regarding “reparations” the defeated may feel entitled to. 

The answer is inhuman.

 

No quarter.

But alas, wars are not about a solution, they are about money.

 

And a conquering army cannot profit from a non-existent capitol labour pool.

 

Win or lose, we are all slaves to someone’s army. 

 

 

 

[babadono]

3 hours ago, Mallette said:

Once you are in a war,  you kill people and break things until the  other side stops

What century are you in? Last war that was fought like that was WWII. IMHO of course.

[Jeff Matthews]

3 hours ago, Mallette said:

Whole thing is a non-debate. Far more were killed by conventional bombing. Many times more  would have  died without the bomb. Once you are in a war,  you kill people and break things until the  other side stops. Humane warfare is a contradiction in terms.

Dave

 

Is it possible to have "humane warfare?"  Absolutely! 

 

"Once you are in a war,  you kill people and break things until the  other side stops."  That's too indiscriminate.  We don't fight wars like that.  To put the debate into modern events, it is being reported that Bolton has a bone to pick with the CIC because he refused to kill 200 Iranians in retaliation for destroying a US drone.

 

 

[oldtimer]

That was last century, what is your point again?  Viet Nam was fought until we stopped.  Nixon's "peace with honor"...Mallette was there btw.  And Jeff, now we get to debate what is and what isn't properly called a "war."  WTF guys.  This is what happens with an ill-defined topic based upon someone's reaction to a few op-eds.  Rarely do you ever see articles about leading up to the decision in WWII?  Really?  Ever read actual history, or just op-eds published to get a rise out of some people?  Mallette is right.  This is a non-debate.

[Jeff Matthews]

17 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

That was last century, what is your point again?  Viet Nam was fought until we stopped.  Nixon's "peace with honor"...Mallette was there btw.  And Jeff, now we get to debate what is and what isn't properly called a "war."  WTF guys.  This is what happens with an ill-defined topic based upon someone's reaction to a few op-eds.  Rarely do you ever see articles about leading up to the decision in WWII?  Really?  Ever read actual history, or just op-eds published to get a rise out of some people?  Mallette is right.  This is a non-debate.

It is a non-debate because of the circumstances - not because of the categorical assertion that "all is fair in war."

[oldtimer]

So we agree.  It is a non-debate.

[Bosco-d-gama]

16 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

So we agree.  It is a non-debate.

Find me the article written for the Japanese by a Japanese Journal telling the woeful stories of the survivors of their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, or the the rape of Nanking. This is the debate. The mindset some thrive on attempting to eternally slam down the ‘shame’ card over our use of the atomic bombs. So find me where anything similar happens to the Japanese public over any of their many WW2 atrocities.

 

https://time.com/after-the-bomb/

[oldtimer]

Why should I (or we) care about what the Japanese think?  Personally, I don't care to research.  p.s. I don't trust them any more than the Russians or the Chinese.  

However, there have been visits by old Japanese to pay respects at Pearl Harbor.  I don't know if you would call it shame, or just respect, and again, I don't care what they think.  In the USA, we have the freedom to have whatever mindset we like, and we fought to preserve that right.  Worrying about others "mindsets" and insistence on some form of equity sounds suspiciously wrong, don't you think?  

[Bosco-d-gama]

2 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Why should I (or we) care about what the Japanese think?  Personally, I don't care to research.  p.s. I don't trust them any more than the Russians or the Chinese.  

However, there have been visits by old Japanese to pay respects at Pearl Harbor.  I don't know if you would call it shame, or just respect, and again, I don't care what they think.  In the USA, we have the freedom to have whatever mindset we like, and we fought to preserve that right.  

Sorry I forgot the link for my prior post. It’s there now. Time magazine recounting the memories of atomic bomb attacks. National Geographic just published a similar story.

 

Some of us get tire of getting brow beaten with the guilt stick over ‘no’ brainer issues. Obviously you do not mind, or do not care. So conversely you do not care how Americans feel about it either. Some of us get offended.....  deeply. Don’t understand that? Do you?

[oldtimer]

I don't like whining out of anyone.  It's too bad you feel guilty, otherwise the stick would not hurt.

[Jeff Matthews]

14 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

I don't like whining out of anyone.  It's too bad you feel guilty, otherwise the stick would not hurt.

I think we're kind of in the same boat there.  To me, that's history before I was born.  I take it more as a matter of fact than whether I need to feel good or bad about it.  I'm glad we won, though!

[Bosco-d-gama]

26 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

I don't like whining out of anyone.  It's too bad you feel guilty, otherwise the stick would not hurt.

No - you do not understand. I do not feel guilty. I am weary of the media attempting to make me feel guilty. It is an annual event. ‘’America you are bad because of the abomb’’. Instead we should be thanked for the blood and treasure sacrifices undertaken to prevail in that ugly war.

[sputnik]

32 minutes ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

.......... Some of us get offended.....  deeply. Don’t understand that? Do you?

 

Just who is wringing their hands?? Who is trying to make you feel guilty??  Have you asked yourself if you’re just being over-sensitive?