62 years and counting...

[Famine]

Just a quick note to commemorate the first use of nuclear weapons in combat - it's 62 years (and just over 22 hours) since the Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima.

 

[UnoMOTO]

That would have just pass right by many of us.

Maybe a "this day in history" thread would be worthy.

 

[Famine]

It's one that gets forgotten, for several reasons. For Europeans, WWII ended months earlier. For Japanese, it's an historical sore spot, closing years of behaviour they'd quite like to forget and with hundreds of thousands killed. For Americans... they used nuclear weapons in a war and killed hundreds of thousands of mostly civilians.

It's still a momentous occasion - someone had to use one in anger in order for us all to see the sheer power of this technology - and it brought a swift and early conclusion to WWII, with the inevitable ending and, some might argue, fewer deaths than the prolonged conventional war.

 

[Stevisiov]

I have always found the name 'little boy' somewhat ironic. Then again perhaps that was the intention, Its hard to view it as a good or bad thing given that it may have in fact saved many more lives, but it did not have to be used to kill so many people to prove the point to the Japanese had no option but to surrender. Nevertheless it is an important event to remember good or bad.

 

[Famine]

It was very little - the destruction all came from 0.6g of matter being converted into energy.

 

[Stevisiov]

It was very little - the destruction all came from 0.6g of matter being converted into energy.

Ah right, it was no Tsar then, I believe that was massive.

 

[Barracuda]

I view it as a good thing . Yay for Nucular bombs

 

[Driving Park]

At least they hadn't invented H-bombs back then...

Or did they? Question for ya Famine, what year was the H-bomb first tested? I'm curious.

:-)

 

[Azuremen]

I am not sure on the year of the first testing of the H - Bomb, but I do recall it being what Hitler had his scientists working on. That combined with the prototype bombers they had developed would have been scary, as they could have hit New York. Lets just be grateful Hitler was an idiot.

I've read up a bit on the Pacific Theater war, and the severity of it. The Japanese were basically ready to throw anything and anyone they could at the Americans if they landed there. Just looking how difficult it was to take control of some the islands shows how horrible things could have gotten there. The dropping of Little Boy, followed by Fat Man, swiftly ended what could have dragged on for much longer. Luckily for the US, the Japanese thought we had more after Fat Man (Fat Man was dropped because they said the US did not have more bombs, trying to call a bluff that was somewhat true)

 

[YSSMAN]

I believe the officially unofficial estimates for a conventional landing on the mainland of Japan would have been nearly a million casualties for the US alone, not to mention the untold estimates for the Japanese themselves. Basically what it came down to is that the Atomic bombings actually saved lives, hard to believe as it is.

The whole thing opened up a whole new can of worms, much of which we're still dealing with today. Nuclear weapons are our friends, and they are our worst of enemies. Thank God a large portion of them are in the hands of our allies (US, UK, France and Russia), but they continue to be the source of our undoing when it comes to peace in this world (see, Iran).

 

[a6m5]

I believe the officially unofficial estimates for a conventional landing on the mainland of Japan would have been nearly a million casualties for the US alone,

There is no way it would've been that much. Japan was out of bullets. They didn't have much of anything left to fire at the Allies. Most of the Imperial Japan's defense would've been rock throwing, Palestinian style. U.S. Military casualties in all of the WWII, including when Japan and Germany were at their full strength, did not even come close to that.

As far as the decision behind the atomic bombs, I don't believe there is any doubt that it did save many lives of the Allied troops. As far as the Japanese casualties by the atomic bombs, many times more died from the carpet bombing using the conventional bombs, so while I definitely get the point of how significant Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were, I tend to look at the overall civilian killing by all bombs(and bullets from the fighter planes).

War should be the last resort, but we take it too lightly.

 

[BobK]

There is no way it would've been that much. Japan was out of bullets. They didn't have much of anything left to fire at the Allies. Most of the Imperial Japan's defense would've been rock throwing, Palestinian style. U.S. Military casualties in all of the WWII, including when Japan and Germany were at their full strength, did not even come close to that.

As far as the decision behind the atomic bombs, I don't believe there is any doubt that it did save many lives of the Allied troops. As far as the Japanese casualties by the atomic bombs, many times more died from the carpet bombing using the conventional bombs, so while I definitely get the point of how significant Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were, I tend to look at the overall civilian killing by all bombs(and bullets from the fighter planes).

War should be the last resort, but we take it too lightly.

Some estimates were even higher than one million. Keep in mind, though, that "casualties" does not equal "killed", it also includes wounded and missing in action. Nonetheless, at least a quarter of a million US servicemen killed is very believeable. We would also have to add Australian and other allied soldiers/sailor casualties to the numbers.

Japan was low on ammunition, but they were by no means out of ammunition; there was enough in Japan to equip 30 divisions. They had at least 10,000 aircraft, the vast majority of which would have been used as kamikazes. Furthermore the kamikazes would have been more effective than they had been in Okinawa because they wouldn't have had the long flight over water (and US picket ships) to get to the invasion fleet. In addition they had thousands of small suicide craft. This was the situation in August 1945. Since the Japanese were pulling forces back from the mainland (which is where the bulk of their army had been throughout the entire war), the numbers would have been much greater by the time of the invasion.

As for the civilian casualties as a result of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), let's put things in perspective here. The Japanese slaughtered somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 civilians in Nanking and about 100,000 in Manila. These were senseless massacres that accomplished no military objective whatsoever, unlike the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

 

[Sureboss]

Much of a neccesary evil. No one likes the fact that these bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people, but maybe appreciate the fact that it probably saved many more (not just Allied soldiers but Japanese civilians).

 

[a6m5]

Some estimates were even higher than one million. Keep in mind, though, that "casualties" does not equal "killed", it also includes wounded and missing in action. Nonetheless, at least a quarter of a million US servicemen killed is very believeable. We would also have to add Australian and other allied soldiers/sailor casualties to the numbers.

Oh, I thought it meant "dead". My mistake. 250,000 killed sounds like a long shot to me, but it's entirely possible.

Japan was low on ammunition, but they were by no means out of ammunition; there was enough in Japan to equip 30 divisions. They had at least 10,000 aircraft, the vast majority of which would have been used as kamikazes. Furthermore the kamikazes would have been more effective than they had been in Okinawa because they wouldn't have had the long flight over water (and US picket ships) to get to the invasion fleet. In addition they had thousands of small suicide craft. This was the situation in August 1945. Since the Japanese were pulling forces back from the mainland (which is where the bulk of their army had been throughout the entire war), the numbers would have been much greater by the time of the invasion.

I was just making a point with the "out of bullets" and rock throwing stuff. In reality though, it's debatable that Japan had enough ammunition, pilots, or fuel to fly those planes. It's even more doubtful that those planes could have made into the air to counter any attacks. There might not even been any useable runways left.

Kamikaze, yes. I disagree with almost everything else though. From what I've read, it's not easy to "kamikaze" targets when they are firing at you from all directions, even for skilled pilots. Keep in mind, most Japanese pilots were dead by 1945. Towards the end of the war, much of the Japanese planes were being flown by kids who just learned to fly.

On the returning Japanese forces putting up a fight, I think it would've been a very convincing, swift victory for the Allies. Bottom line, by 1945, Imperial Japanese Army didn't have much of anything to even slow down the Americans anymore. Soldiers were injured, starving, ammunitions were low, weapons were poorly maintained, etc., etc.

I am agreeing that atomic bombs probably did save many lives on the Allied end(and Japanese too). But I just can't see Japan having enough left in their tank to do the kind of damage on Americans(or Allied forces) that entire Axis powers managed at their full strength with real soldiers.

As for the civilian casualties as a result of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), let's put things in perspective here. The Japanese slaughtered somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 civilians in Nanking and about 100,000 in Manila. These were senseless massacres that accomplished no military objective whatsoever, unlike the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

And I thought, I was putting things in perspective.

If the bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only bombing that took place in Japan, you'd have a good argument there. Japan was arguably the biggest war criminal of all in the WWII. I'm not going to justify or defend what Japan did in that war, but I don't think you can't burn all the cities down and claim that they were all part of "military objective" either.

 

[jammyozzy]

At least they hadn't invented H-bombs back then...

Or did they? Question for ya Famine, what year was the H-bomb first tested? I'm curious.

:-)

November 1st, 1952, as part of Operation Ivy.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

It's always a difficult thing to judge what influenced what, or who deserved what in the course of war. There are some who state that an invasion of the japanese homeland would have left hundreds of thousands of dead as the citizens were prepared (being trained to use bamboo spears) to defend their homeland to the death for their emperor. Although Japan was no longer a threat (armies abandoned throughout the pacific, almost no fuel or ammunition, some planes but no pilots to fly them, railways and communications knocked out, etc) many U.S war planners were under the impression that the only way to make japan capitulate was to invade.

There are other war critics who claim that the damage done by the atomic bombing on Aug 6th was unnecessary because the firebombings were ripping apart the country (100,000+ dead on the night of March 10, 1945 alone), and continued fire bombing would have produced the same (more or less) results that the atomic bomb did.

The continued firebombings, the Russian armies advancing, and the atomic bombs are all considered reasons for japan's surrender. Who knows if it was any or all of these.

 

[Driving Park]

November 1st, 1952, as part of Operation Ivy.

Thanks!

:-)

 

[a6m5]

It's always a difficult thing to judge what influenced what, or who deserved what in the course of war. There are some who state that an invasion of the japanese homeland would have left hundreds of thousands of dead as the citizens were prepared (being trained to use bamboo spears) to defend their homeland to the death for their emperor. Although Japan was no longer a threat (armies abandoned throughout the pacific, almost no fuel or ammunition, some planes but no pilots to fly them, railways and communications knocked out, etc) many U.S war planners were under the impression that the only way to make japan capitulate was to invade.

There are other war critics who claim that the damage done by the atomic bombing on Aug 6th was unnecessary because the firebombings were ripping apart the country (100,000+ dead on the night of March 10, 1945 alone), and continued fire bombing would have produced the same (more or less) results that the atomic bomb did.

The continued firebombings, the Russian armies advancing, and the atomic bombs are all considered reasons for japan's surrender. Who knows if it was any or all of these.

I agree. So many things to factor in, and I sure don't know if it was a good move or not.

I've even read recently that Japan was already ready to surrender. They were just using the USSR and USA compete to offer better condition for surrender, and that's why they were dragging their feet, or at least look like they were. I do think there was something going on behind the scenes.

 

[Sureboss]

The only people who really knew what Japan's intentions were, are long dead, so we'll probably never ever know.

 

[Azuremen]

Oh, I thought it meant "dead". My mistake. 250,000 killed sounds like a long shot to me, but it's entirely possible.


I was just making a point with the "out of bullets" and rock throwing stuff. In reality though, it's debatable that Japan had enough ammunition, pilots, or fuel to fly those planes. It's even more doubtful that those planes could have made into the air to counter any attacks. There might not even been any useable runways left.

Kamikaze, yes. I disagree with almost everything else though. From what I've read, it's not easy to "kamikaze" targets when they are firing at you from all directions, even for skilled pilots. Keep in mind, most Japanese pilots were dead by 1945. Towards the end of the war, much of the Japanese planes were being flown by kids who just learned to fly.

On the returning Japanese forces putting up a fight, I think it would've been a very convincing, swift victory for the Allies. Bottom line, by 1945, Imperial Japanese Army didn't have much of anything to even slow down the Americans anymore. Soldiers were injured, starving, ammunitions were low, weapons were poorly maintained, etc., etc.

I am agreeing that atomic bombs probably did save many lives on the Allied end(and Japanese too). But I just can't see Japan having enough left in their tank to do the kind of damage on Americans(or Allied forces) that entire Axis powers managed at their full strength with real soldiers.

And I thought, I was putting things in perspective.

If the bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only bombing that took place in Japan, you'd have a good argument there. Japan was arguably the biggest war criminal of all in the WWII. I'm not going to justify or defend what Japan did in that war, but I don't think you can't burn all the cities down and claim that they were all part of "military objective" either.

I know you think 250,000 is far fetched, but consider this - Battle of Normandy casualties were near 300,000. Japan was going to put everything into the conflict, arming citizens with pitch forks and such. When you are out numbered 10 to 1 in landing, even if most of them are throwing rocks and such, it can still be problematic. More so because most of the of US soldiers would probably have had issues opening fire on women and children.

From what I have studied, the Japanese would have lost easily millions. The US would likely have had over a million wounded, at the very least.

On the issue of Kamikazing targets. Realize that deck cannons and small arms fire are very different things. Nailing a group of infantry would not be hard. Also, in taking cities, we would have had to deal with urban warfare, where 3 people can cause dozens on injuries on a group of infantry. Taking Japan would be like war in Iraq now... a group of people that refuse to surrender, hiding out and such. Just look at how long Japanese soldiers holed up on the islands in caves. Bunch of starving, out of ammunition

I think you are being very optimistic. The Japanese fought a war against not just an enemy army, but its people. Thus the 15 million dead Civilians in China. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to destroy military targets. It was to say "This is what we can and will do if this continues. Surrender for the sake of your people. The is no honor is being removed from the face of the earth with no chance to strike back." The bombing of other cities is a fact of war. There was no Dresden though in Japan, and most of the Civilian casualties were a result of the Nuclear weapons.

I'm gonna stop now before I go off on the development of Japan from a Feudal nation to an industrial power in a short span and the affects that had on their government of the time.

In short, both sides did terrible things. Thus is the way of war.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

The bombing of other cities is a fact of war. There was no Dresden though in Japan, and most of the Civilian casualties were a result of the Nuclear weapons.

The allies had been firebombing japan into ash since the spring. Lemay had decided to stop bombing strategic targets and just drop fire bombs all over the largest cities. The worst being March 10, 1945 when the allies dropped bombs on the most densely populated spot in Japan. Dresden pales in comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#Firebombing

 

[a6m5]

I know you think 250,000 is far fetched, but consider this - Battle of Normandy casualties were near 300,000.

First of all, sorry to drag this subject on.

Actually, 250,000 in my reply was the projection of the U.S./Allied troops dead, not the overall casualties of the Allies. According to wiki, numbers of American, Canadian and British troops killed in the Normandy were 45,000.

Japan was going to put everything into the conflict, arming citizens with pitch forks and such. When you are out numbered 10 to 1 in landing, even if most of them are throwing rocks and such, it can still be problematic. More so because most of the of US soldiers would probably have had issues opening fire on women and children.

I disagree with your take. I don't believe the civilians with bamboo spears would've been much of a problem with soldiers with flamethrowers and assault weapons. As far as firing on women and children, I believe it would've gotten done. I'm Japanese, you are an American(as far as I know ), I can see how we see things differently on this though, based on the stories we were told by the survivors.

From what I have studied, the Japanese would have lost easily millions. The US would likely have had over a million wounded, at the very least.

If it did lead to the actual invasion, that is entirely possible.

On the issue of Kamikazing targets. Realize that deck cannons and small arms fire are very different things. Nailing a group of infantry would not be hard. Also, in taking cities, we would have had to deal with urban warfare, where 3 people can cause dozens on injuries on a group of infantry.

Good point. But again, I'm very doubtful that the Japanese could have used their kamikaze planes to their advantage with the American air superiority.

Taking Japan would be like war in Iraq now... a group of people that refuse to surrender, hiding out and such. Just look at how long Japanese soldiers holed up on the islands in caves. Bunch of starving, out of ammunition

If the Japanese actually were going to refuse to surrender, leading to the invasion, you'd probably be right.

I think you are being very optimistic. The Japanese fought a war against not just an enemy army, but its people. Thus the 15 million dead Civilians in China. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to destroy military targets. It was to say "This is what we can and will do if this continues. Surrender for the sake of your people. The is no honor is being removed from the face of the earth with no chance to strike back." The bombing of other cities is a fact of war. There was no Dresden though in Japan, and most of the Civilian casualties were a result of the Nuclear weapons.

I beg to differ. Non-atomic bombs caused more casualties than the two atomic bombs, Which leads me to believe that it caused more civilian casualties as well. How about the firebombing? Also, towards the end of the war, the Japanese were often not able to get their fighters up in the air to intercept the bombers. As a result, fighters would mow down the fleeing civilians with their guns. I'm not going to make a claim that the U.S. was evil in the sense Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan was. I'm just saying that U.S. were not exactly innocent with their tactical bombings.

P.S. I've been working on this post on&off since around lunch today, so it might be bit outdated. Sorry.