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

At least a dozen generals and admirals were all quoted as saying the bomb was not needed. I am on my phone or would post them. These were the top guys...the joint chiefs

 

Well when you get to a computer please post something credible.

 

Only one general, marshall, recommended the bomb at the time. One.

 

I would point out that many countries may view this retaliation with open arms. Like, getting someone to nuke them back is the actual point of making the attack in the first place. I doubt you understand what the true use of the term deterrence is.

 

Sorry they have all kinds of other conditions such as they themselves would run war crime trials on all their own people and their troops outside their border would be brought back by them with their small arms and so on.

 

Historically innacurate. The cost to the allies would have been astronomical. It would have also been the utter devastation to the Japanese islands, a fact that Truman understood he would need in the future once US occupation transitioned Japan as a future member of the world community.

The assertion that Truman did this as a demonstration to frighten the Soviets is laughable. They were not exactly much behind us in being able to produce a weaponized nuclear device. Which, they did. In your mind, what was the message then, that Truman sent? This is what it looks like, get one of your own?

 

The war was over. The bomb had nothing to do with japan

- - - Updated - - -

That we will use it. Even if we don't have to

 

Far more people were being killed in Japan with mass firebombings even moreso than Dresden, which killed far more people than the atom bombs did. The alternative to those two atomic bombs - which promptly ended the war - was to continue to massively firebomb Japan killing many times more people, without causing a surrender and instead making the people and leadership dig in more.

The advocacy of forcing Germany and Japan to surrender by massively bombing civilians - advocated by such generals as Vegas is citing as his "military experts" - absolutely failed. All it did is make the population and military so outrages they determined to never surrender. Dresden, particularly, shocked the world by mass killing civilian in a massive fire conflagration that sucked out all the oxygen killing basically everyone either by burning or suffocating. Japan was a country built out of wood and we were burning Japan to the ground.

The two atom bombs were the specific reason the war promptly ended as did the killing. That seems to infuriate some people. If Japan was going to surrender without that Japan would have - but had not. Those two atom bombs brought home that we weren't willing to suffer even ONE more American casualty and either Japan immediately surrendered or we would wipe the Japanese race off the face of the earth. Stating that singular specific reason the Emperor issued is surrender radio broadcast, giving no conditions of surrendering.

If you explore those in the military who later said they opposed the bombing with atom bombs, you come up with bizarre reasons. For example, McArthur argued that all we had to do was agree that Japan could keep its Emperor and military in charge of government also promising no occupation then Japan would have surrendered - or if not then drop an atom bomb on Tokyo - not exactly an opponent to the atom bomb being used. Of course, really that is just a cease fire to allow Japan to rebuild if we did not and we absolutely were not going to allow Japan's military and Emperor to continue to control Japan. LeMay believed if we just kept firebombing every city killing Japanese by the millions they would have surrendered.

Those military leaders directly involved and virtually every civil leader (we are a civil government democratic republic and not a military oligarchy) favored dropping the atom bombs to promptly end the war, for which they were proven 100% correct about that. The Emperor promptly broadcast that because of our having and using atomic bombs he was surrendering. He gave no other reason and rather it was "THE" reason.

 

No. So many innocent lives were involved!

 

The War Dept said it would take 2 million US causalities to take the mainland of Japan with Millions of civilians deaths on the Nation of Japan's side. Truman was correct to do what he did.

 

If we do not follow the advice of virtually all our military experts.....why have them?

 

Laughable.

 

You can keep saying it was not needed over and over but that is your opinion without backing and with hundreds of thousands of american lives and many millions of Japanese lives in the balance.

No new Purple Heart Medals had been manufacture for 70 years as the US military had order so many to be used in the invasion of the home islands that we still have large stock piles of them.

In any case, as a son who was father after the war by a soldier who would had taken part in the invasion of the home islands I am damn glad that those two bombs was drop.

 

The generals said invasion was not needed

- - - Updated - - -

It was the opinion of every military leader we had except one. Don't take my word......take theirs. Even jake does not deny this

 

Give links to all those military experts that agree with your position as far as I am aware of after the fact only General MacArthur agree with you years after the fact.

As I stated I am damn happy that my father to be did no need to run the risk of dying on the beaches of the home islands.

 

I am on my phone sitting on a beach in mexico...you know...the fun side of the wall. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

I am on my phone sitting on a beach in mexico...you know...the fun side of the wall. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

I am on my phone sitting on a beach in mexico...you know...the fun side of the wall. Lol

 

Here is the information and opinions that Truman had to go on before deciding to drop those two bombs.

It was the opinion of every military leader we had except one. Don't take my word......take theirs. Even jake does not deny this[/QUOTE]

 

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

In three shakes.
And I would have kept dropping them until they surrendered or the islands sank into the ocean.

 

[/QUOTE]

I wish I could show you the quotes. LeMay actually said all we needed was to wait two weeks. They were all against it

 

The USAAF firebombed historic Japanese cities killed civilians for months before we dropped the bombs -- how is that different?

 

I to this day have pictures of piles of dead rotting bodies of Japanese on some of the islands beaches that the military gave my father a tour of during the war.

Footnote due to my father having been train on the Norden bomb sight his own people have orders to killed him if it look like he would be capture.

War is not a game and the dropping of those bombs in my opinion save millions of lives on both sides with one of them likely being my father to be.

 

I guess we should have nuked vietnam, Korea , Afghanistan and iraq......right?

 

Hogwash.

The USSR invaded Manchuria, the loss of which was incidental at best in Japan's effort to fight the US.
That is, the Japanese keeping its western conquests had no effect whatsoever on Japan's inability to protect itself from the fleets of B29s blackening Japanese skies and burning Japanese cities to the ground.

The Japaneses feared the bomb, not the bear.

 

Ike wasn't part of the decision process and did not have all the information available to those that were.
Feel free to drop another name.

- - - Updated - - -

This is par for the course.

 

This is unsupportable nonsense.