The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[gipper]

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

I'm not going to catch up page-by-page but I am going to respond to the OP.

What was obscene was for the Emperor of Japan to leverage the religious nature of his role in order to cause his soldiers to never surrender, fight to the death and create the environment where it was necessary to take all possible alternatives to avoid having to invade Japan. It was obscene for the Emperor of Japan, after seeing what happened in Hiroshima, to not surrender.

On every level, the bombing of Nagasaki was the fault and choice of the Emperor of Japan. One might argue against Hiroshima and the use of the atomic bomb in the first place but, once that was done, Nagasaki is 100% on the Emperor.

The bombs never should have been dropped. Just accept their surrender and go home. Imagine the thousands of lives saved on both sides, had that been done.

 

[gipper]

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” "

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?

www.thenation.com

If they were ready to surrender, then why, after Hiroshima, didn't they surrender?

They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.

You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.

 

[Levant]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.

It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win. As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war. Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons. Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care. When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object. When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible. Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.

 

[Levant]

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” "

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?

www.thenation.com

If they were ready to surrender, then why, after Hiroshima, didn't they surrender?

They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.

You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.

That is an asinine idea and you can't back it up. Of course the word got to Tokyo within minutes to hours.

 

[Levant]

They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.

You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.

And why in the world would we consider anything less than unconditional surrender?

 

[gipper]

They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.

You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.

And why in the world would we consider anything less than unconditional surrender?

To stop the wanton slaughter and end the war.

 

[Levant]

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

I'm not going to catch up page-by-page but I am going to respond to the OP.

What was obscene was for the Emperor of Japan to leverage the religious nature of his role in order to cause his soldiers to never surrender, fight to the death and create the environment where it was necessary to take all possible alternatives to avoid having to invade Japan. It was obscene for the Emperor of Japan, after seeing what happened in Hiroshima, to not surrender.

On every level, the bombing of Nagasaki was the fault and choice of the Emperor of Japan. One might argue against Hiroshima and the use of the atomic bomb in the first place but, once that was done, Nagasaki is 100% on the Emperor.

The bombs never should have been dropped. Just accept their surrender and go home. Imagine the thousands of lives saved on both sides, had that been done.

Imagine the hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost had they not done it - American lives. Japan shouldn't have attacked the United States. A thousand American lives versus a hundred thousand of an enemy who attacked us? Which would you choose? For me, any military attack against the United States should spell the end of the regime that attacked if not the end of the nation that attacked.

 

[Levant]

They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.

You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.

And why in the world would we consider anything less than unconditional surrender?

To stop the wanton slaughter and end the war.

Again, why would we do that? The slaughter was started by Japan. The war was started by Japan. If unconditional surrender would stop the slaughter and stop the war, why aren't you asking Japan these questions? Oh, I know. America bad.. America haters disgust me.

 

[gipper]

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

I'm not going to catch up page-by-page but I am going to respond to the OP.

What was obscene was for the Emperor of Japan to leverage the religious nature of his role in order to cause his soldiers to never surrender, fight to the death and create the environment where it was necessary to take all possible alternatives to avoid having to invade Japan. It was obscene for the Emperor of Japan, after seeing what happened in Hiroshima, to not surrender.

On every level, the bombing of Nagasaki was the fault and choice of the Emperor of Japan. One might argue against Hiroshima and the use of the atomic bomb in the first place but, once that was done, Nagasaki is 100% on the Emperor.

The bombs never should have been dropped. Just accept their surrender and go home. Imagine the thousands of lives saved on both sides, had that been done.

Imagine the hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost had they not done it - American lives. Japan shouldn't have attacked the United States. A thousand American lives versus a hundred thousand of an enemy who attacked us? Which would you choose? For me, any military attack against the United States should spell the end of the regime that attacked if not the end of the nation that attacked.

Lies. Propaganda.

You seem to think the Japanese people deserved it for the minor event that was Pearl Harbor. Most warlike of you.

 

[Unkotare]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

 

[Unkotare]

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” "

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?

www.thenation.com

.

 

[Unkotare]

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

 

[Levant]

Lies. Propaganda.

You seem to think the Japanese people deserved it for the minor event that was Pearl Harbor. Most warlike of you.

Sure, I'll take that. More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.

And then there's the other 6 million killed by the Japanese.. So, Hiroshima for Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki for 6 million others.

The problem here is that there are Americans that think Pearl Harbor was a minor event and that the Japanese were otherwise wonderful people.

I lived a few years in Japan as a kid and went back again for a tour when I was in the Navy. I loved Japan as it was in the early 60s and again in the late 70s. I'm not so sure now; a lot of their tradition has been lost - but a lot still remains.

But 1937 to 1945 Japan got just what they had coming to them.. .well, not completely; it should have been even harder on them.

 

[Unkotare]

... More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.
...

Sounds like you are outraged at the needless deaths of women and children. Are you?

 

[Unkotare]

...So, Hiroshima for Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki for 6 million others.
...

So, over 100,000 civilians in a civilian city was 'revenge' for a military attack on a military base that wasn't even in the United States? Can you find a military or political leader of the day who expressed the notion that it was an act of revenge? As for dropping a second atom bomb on behalf of other nations, good luck finding any shred of evidence that our motivation was thus?

 

[Unkotare]

... a lot of their tradition has been lost -...

Like what?

 

[Levant]

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Are you trying to demonstrate the Japanese' willingness to surrender? I don't get it. This only talks about partnership/surrender between Russia and Japan and nothing about unconditional surrender to the US. The US had the right to demand unconditional surrender. The Japanese knew that was the price and chose to not give it.

 

[Levant]

... a lot of their tradition has been lost -...

Like what?

pop culture, clothing, politeness, bowing, etc. A lot more fast food - American style. Even their view toward the west.

I can't count how many days I went from the base to right across the street for katsudon or ramen (real ramen, not dried crap). Now it's more likely to be McDonalds.

Their young are just like ours. They've moved on and left a lot of our traditions behind as well.

 

[Unkotare]

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

Are you trying to demonstrate the Japanese' willingness to surrender? I don't get it. This only talks about partnership/surrender between Russia and Japan and nothing about unconditional surrender to the US. The US had the right to demand unconditional surrender. The Japanese knew that was the price and chose to not give it.

This ^^^ is what happens when weak reading skills combine with a barely superficial understanding of history.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.

What should we choose? Why?