Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

No invasion was needed according to the military experts of the time

 

Obviously you have great hatred of civilian government. I cites THE general who mattered, the general who was in charge of the invasion. You have quoted a general who wanted to go to nuclear war against both China and the USSR - and how had killed millions of Japanese civilians in firebombs and was finally canned for his constantly pushing for nuclear war and genocidal attacks on civilians - the type of person you argue should be in control of all military decisions. It should be remembered that you oppose civilian government and instead want a military dictatorship.

But OK, here's another general - specifically the GENERAL who dropped the first atomic bomb:

h General Paul Tibbets, who piloted the Enola Gay that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and told him that:

"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."

SO - the GENERAL in charge of the invasion plans of Japan AND the GENERAL who actually dropped the bomb - the TWO MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE with direct knowledge - at the time and in reflection supported dropping the bomb - meaning you statement is - as is common for your messages - 100% false.

So we are full disagreement. YOU want the USA to be run by the military. I don't. I can quote many, many civilian leaders who before and after supported dropping the atom bomb. But since you DESPISE civilian government decisions and authority, there is no reason to. Instead, I just cited the 2 generals MOST directly involved. The others? Well, the atomic bomb did get most of their laid off, didn't it? No more being heroes killing Japanese for them.

 

That is 100% false and you know it. Nor is it relevant. The Japanese military didn't surrender. The civilian government of Japan did. Despite your apparent worship of SELECTED generals - including genocidal pro-first strike nuclear war generals - in fact this was a civilian government matter. It literally was irrelevant what the military leaders of either country thought.

Since you believe the most murderous military commanders should make all decisions of war, the concept that from beginning to end it was the civilian leadership of the USA and Japan ultimately in charge might be something impossible for you to accept despite this being the facts.

 

He was not a general at the time. You are free to dismiss the greatest military minds of the time. You are free to think you know best. I am free to point out how wacky that belief is. Lol

 

First, I corrected my message. I do not think ALL liberals feel that way.

Second, it is irrelevant what most military leaders LATER said. I quoted the two most directly involved. Nor do I share your blind faith in generals. Also, you shifted from "generals" to "military experts."

Because it caused the surrender of Japan, the most proven "military expert' was, in fact, President Truman.

 

I would not change history as we learned from it, but I would not let Iran, n Korea or any other country use them today

 

Truman a military expert? Thanks for that laugh. Believe what you will but the fact is the generals and admirals said this was not needed and they knew more about this than you. It's a simple fact

 

Your greatest military minds got fired for pushing for nuclear war with China and the USSR.

But go ahead, explain why you think we should have dropped atomic bombs on China and the USSR over Korea and the Berlin blockade. Those are your "greatest military minds." Explain their "brilliance" in those open insistences - both fired for it by the civilian leadership you so oppose.

Why was YOUR greatest military experts - McArthur and LeMay - correct in claiming we should bomb China in the Korean War - and why was you "greatest military expert" General LeMay correct in his calling for bombing the USSR with atomic bombs over the Berlin Wall. Explain your experts' wisdom on dropping atom bombs.

 

Who I cited know more about it that you. Truman was a military expert because he understood the overall picture, including the psychology and future implications. Not only did dropping the atom bombs save many, many millions of Japanese lives plus a million American lives, there has been no world war ever since and the number of deaths in the world by wars have dropped ever since. In this, he was a military expert.

 

You do know it was not just MacArthur and lemay? It was a resounding consensus of admirals and generals. That is a fact

- - - Updated - - -

That is priceless. Hysterical. Truman the military expert. Lol

 

Probably not knowing what this bomb was. Perhaps using it there however kept us from using it elsewhere later like Korea. Who knows. I voted no simply because I think we could have won and done so without some bloody invasion of mainland Japan. We were rolling them up and could have starved them into submission if need be.

 

No it is not a fact. Your primary claim is based upon the statements of old generals who were FIRED for openly pushing for first strike nuclear war against Russia and China - and then after fired and discredits as maniacs said "no, wait, really I'm against atomic weapons. I wouldn't have even bombed Japan!" - said the most genocidal general military ever had claiming that if we fire bombed enough millions of Japanese they will surrender. You cite nutcases, old has-beens and generals who had absolutely nothing to do with the decisions.

You have a very simplistic playing-with-toy-soldiers view of military expertise. The USA kicked Iraq's ass in both Gulf wars - so by your message both President Bush obviously military genius, right, because post war and overall foreign policy is irrelevant?

 

Sorry dude it was a resounding chorus of brilliant military minds. Even the English weighed in. Truman was wrong....and everyone knew it. Deny it if it makes you feel better....but it does not change the facts

 

Ah, your ethical of starving 72 million Japanese to death! The military nor Imperial family was starving. How many millions or tens of millions of Japanese would you have starved to death to be moral by not dropping the atom bombs?

Curious how not one of you opposing the atomic bomb have expressed any opposition to what we were doing, which was firebombing wooden Japanese cities. I guess THAT'S OK, even though it was killing more people, because it wasn't "atomic," huh?

What about those million Japanese troops in China and Japan's war of atrocities against the Chinese? I guess you are ok with that and with the Japanese stealing their food so the Chinese starve.

Of course, Japan did have its own atomic bomb program and had started building jet fighter aircraft, plus Hitler at the end had sent Japan all his military technology. I bet Japan would not have hesitated to drop atom bombs on Washington DC, NYC and LA with the new aircraft carrier submarines.

No invasion and why would Japan surrender? They would just rebuild their industry and their new technology weapons - unless of course you would have continued carpet bombing and firebombing Japanese cities - which is where all their war industries were locations. Exactly how many Japanese would you starve to death and kill by conventional bombings by the hundreds of thousands or millions to not use evil atomic bombs? I guess some people think burning people to death is far more moral than instantly killing them?

This entire topic on the anti-bomb side revolves around the claim that there was unique evil to killing people with atom bombs, but is just fine to kill many times more people if done with carpet bombing with conventional explosives and firebombs. That it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with how many people die, but rather just how you kill them.

Why would Japan surrender without an invasion? Food shortage? Are you serious? I guess we could try to kill all the fish in the Sea of Japan and carpet firebomb all of Japan land.

Then the only problem with your argument is that starving Japanese in the island fighting NEVER surrendered for lack of food.

- - - Updated - - -

You are just wrong, your claims false, and you in your messages now - as common - just repeat yourself unable to actually respond to anything specific.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would you do that?

 

My claims are factual and based on the greatest military minds of the time. Not the opinion of someone like you that clearly does not know what he is talking about. Take it up with admiral Nimitz and a dozen others who knew more about the war than you ever will. That is a fact

 

You incorrectly assume that my ethics on nuclear weapons are tethered to death tolls or means of death. Knowing what I know now, it wasn't worth the environmental costs, not just in terms of the two Japanese cities, but in the many places since that were contaminated by the nuclear arms race. In addition, by using the technology as a weapon, it has impeded our more widespread use of nuclear energy.

 

Nimitz was never going to put a foot on Japan and made some terrible decisions in the war. Did you know that he and his wife committed suicide together?

Actually, what Nimitz said is his opinion was based from a military perspective - no considerations otherwise - and that only after the fact. Prior to the bombing he had no objections and had stated the invasion of Japan was too costly in American lives. Instead, he advocated dropping a 3rd atomic bomb on Tokyo.

In early 1945, Nimitz enthusiastically supported the use of atomic bombs in the invasion of Kyushu. When a debate erupted about the use of the third atomic bomb in early August 1945, Nimitz endorsed Tokyo as the target. Nimitz didn’t object to use of the atomic bombs in OLYMPIC or express any reservations about their use before Japan surrendered.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Chester-Nimitz-favor-a-land-invasion-of-Japan-as-against-dropping-the-bomb

So oops - the General in charge of the invasion of Japan supported dropping the atomic bomb. The general who dropped the atomic bomb supported it. And not only did Nimitz "enthusiastically" support dropping the atomic bombs, he wanted to drop another atomic bomb on Tokyo itself.

BUT you still have LeMay, the general who killed over a million Japanese civilians in firebombings and insisted we should drop atomic bombs and China and the USSR, and you still have McArthur, who wanted to drop atomic bombs on China - both fired for furiously advocating us starting nuclear wars. THOSE are you "military experts!"

You're losing this debate. You know that, don't you?

 

Imperial Japan looked @ making an atomic weapon. But their efforts were hopelessly divided between Imperial Japanese Navy & IJ Army. They didn't have the manpower & industrial resources to spare for a crash program, nor the trained physicists, engineers, mathematicians, power plants & on & on to spare from the military effort. They concluded that the effort was beyond their timeframe - IJ was planning on a short war - their only real hope in taking on the Western powers plus the US.

I wasn't aware they built any jet aircraft - I know they built rocket-powered suicide planes - which were very fast. They were carried into attack range by bombers, & then aimed @ their targets & released. The US Navy lost a lot of men & ships to suicide airplane attacks.

The same reason that German tech wasn't particularly useful to IJ - it was too late in the war, IJ couldn't spare the time & lost production to retooling for markedly improved submarines, V-1s & V-2s, & etc. The IJ military thought that the spirit of Bushido could overcome any failing @ all - it could make a difference in closely matched combat - but after the Battle of Midway, the IJN never regained their balance, & they lost the ocean aircraft carriers & their highly trained aircrews & mechanics & support. IJN (nor IJA) never figured out how to keep training people to a reasonable level - they kept wanting to train superwarriors, when merely competent sailors & soldiers in good numbers would have served nearly as well.

As for a strategic bomber, neither the IJA nor IJN ever did build one. If they had developed a deployable nuke, it wouldn't be deployed by bomber nor rocket. They'd have to ship it in or deliver it otherwise, likely by ship. Even the V-2 could only loft about a ton, & that was the German version, which fired from France & Holland into eastern UK.

 

Do I have to drag out the quotes agAin? This is so tiresome. You act like YOU know better than a dozen of the greatest military minds of the time. You are wrong....flat out wrong

 

What does the nuclear arms race have to do with this? Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that if the USA had not dropped the atom bombs all other countries would decide they won't build atomic bombs? That somehow the USA could have unilaterally made every other country keep the genie in the bottle? The knowledge of atomic weapons and how to build them was no secret. German, Japanese, the USA and the British already knew it. Germany had informed Japan of the technology.

So, for your claim to work first you have to explain why are convinced the Japanese would not used atom bombs on China, Russia and via their submarines on us? Given the mass atrocities against the Chinese, including infecting them with biological weapons, why do you think that? Think the Japanese could never have figure out the known technology?

 

So you don't like me citing even the generals you claim? The greatest military minds of the time, including generals, were for dropping the atom bombs - even generals that you cited.

"Greatest military minds" and "generals" are not always the same thing. Some generals are idiots and many are liars. Do you think General Westmoreland, commander for Vietnam and constantly assuring we were winning was one of the "greatest military minds" too?

Many of the USA's generals in WWII were totally incompetent and willing to sacrifice any number of lives for plans built around attrition - that we had more people so more of our people could die than the enemy and we still would win. That basically was the tactic against Germany. Absolutely for early bombing raids. It was understood being an aircrew on a Flying Fortress was essentially a death sentence. Certainly that was Russia's tactic against Germany.

 

Japan had sub launched aircraft within striking distance of the US with bio/chem weapons on board and elected not to launch that attack.

 

Let's talk about suicide. Or how about China or Korea? Or how about the price of tea in China? You are flailing around and drowning in your own argument. It's hilarious. Attack one general or one admiral if you like. But combined they represent the greatest collection of military genius this country has ever known. And they thought the bomb was unecessary. But then we DO have your opinion. Lol

 

I would use it near Japan not in Japan,
too many innocent lives lost where the aim is only to make them wave that white flag.

 

Japan also had developed a jet fighter and had designed a long range heavy bomber capable of reaching the USA, but had not developed it. Like Germany, the clock ran out on their new technologies.

Waiting for Japan to surrender was not an option. Despite such as General LeMay and others claiming Germany and Japan could be bombed into submission, that did not work despite millions of civilians killed. Without invasion, Japan would have developed its new military technology. While Russia may have been able to run Japan out of China, that would not end the war ether. Unless there was even more massive, non stop bombing of Japan - killing more millions of Japanese, without an invasion Japan would have continued it rapid development of next generation weapons and aircraft - and to the extent civilians were starving this could give basis for Japan to use weapons of mass destruction - biological, chemical and ultimately atomic - against the USA and probably a round two WWII maybe starting with Hawaii again - only with WMDs and WWII now being fought with genocidal WMDs.

There were only two options:
1. Massive invasion of mainland Japan with massive casualties or convince Japan we could kill them all from the air with atom bombs. Granted, some generals were getting off planning million man invasions killing millions of Japanese for which they could get their name in the newspapers more for their victories doing what generals do - kill people and win hard fought battle after battle after battle (though the generals themselves stay safely away - or wiser heads could convince the Emperor that we were prepared to whip the Japanese off the face of the earth forever if he did not immediately surrender - and it worked.

That's the reality. The messages on some hatred of those atom bombs, that killed less and mass firebombing raids, is just zippy pinhead sloganism rather than the actual realities of the war at the time. The Japanese military ha no intentions of surrendering - ever - particularly knowing their only choices were either suicide or being hung for war crimes if they surrendered. As on the islands, they would fight to the death and all civilians to die with them.