Hiroshima: necessary?

I completely agree gear.

So does he just need to tip a few right now then?

That explains a whole lot.

Having any luck with that drink recipe yet M? ;)

um, if roosevelt allowed the bomb to be made in the first place why would he have forbidden it to be used against a country we were still at war with?

*Yawn*

Seriously, why are you people even talking to this person? I'm completely floored.

Squirrel, don't you have any huffing to do?

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/japan/bonds1.jpg

xposts

I wonder if there's was a war stamp discount on larger amounts? Maybe, 60 bullets for $1.00.

I would surmise that he was behind the building of the bomb because he knew he was in a race with Germany over who would accomplish it first. That doesn't mean he actually wanted to use it on a city or two. The reason Einstein is relevant to the discussion at all is because he had originally sent a letter to FDR to advise him to start the program:

In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.

Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." -Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1

I was in no way attempting to say that Einstein's opinions about FDR were true. I was simply adding another name to the movers and thinkers of the era who were opposed to the use of the bomb at the time.

Heh heh heh heh I missed this earlier. Ally, I can certainly see how you would see that quote from "A Beautiful Mind" would seem pretentious as hell. It seems I fergot to mention that the characters were discussing this very debate, which is why it seemed appropriate to me at the time.

Imagine this: It is August 1, 1945. Everything about the war has occurred exactly as history indicates except for one item - the Trinity test of the first uranium bomb failed because the design was wrong, and Los Alamos determines that the design flaws will take several years to fix.

Now ask: could the war with Japan successfully be ended within that time frame, without the bomb's availability? If so, then the bomb was not (strictly speaking) necessary to end the war, but only sufficient.

It is pretty clear to me that the bomb was not necessary by that time. That is why the question in thread is probably the wrong question in my view. The answer is too obvious.

By the same token, there is no doubt whether the bomb was sufficient to end the war, as the events of history prove that it was.

I am pretty sure Truman knew this, too. He had a weapon sufficient to end the war, but not strictly necessary. Under those conditions he was ultimately responsible, as no one else was, for weighing the pros and cons of using it and deciding what approach would provide the "best" result. That is why I focus on him. It was in his hands exclusively. No one else. No one. Period.

Since Truman, like any other person, could not foretell the course of the future with any accuracy or great confidence, he simply did the best he could and selected the line of reasoning that seemed to him to be the strongest. We do not know his reasoning, only the outcome of it and the official explanantion for it.

In arguing over the merits of this decision, it seems to me that we have to grant that Truman could not have known what answer was "correct" and neither could we, in his place. We, too, would have been reduced to doing our best, choosing the strongest line of reasoning we could identify, and sticking to it.

Our basic problem now, in 2006, is that we cannot discover the actual line of reasoning Truman based his decision on and so we cannot effectively either criticize it or commend it. We are blind men feeling an elephant.

If we consider the different question of whether the bombs ought to have been dropped, then we immediately engage in speculations similar to those that limited Truman's view of the future outcome of his decision; we cannot say what would have happened with any accuracy or great confidence. We can argue from probability only.

I don't doubt there are justifications in Truman's autobiography or in the records of Dean Acheson and George Marshall; but I'm not going to dip into those at the moment.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - General George Patton

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full

interesting!

we've argued about this on other threads, but i don't think the nuclear bombing are morally special or different from, like, the plain old bombings we were doing

Nagasaki was necessary because it occurred on 9 August, which is also my birthday

― dave q, Monday, 20 August 2001 Bookmark

The real reason for this revival...

The important part of Hasegawa's argument is that Nagasaki was totally needless. We couldn't give them a week to surrender? And the third bomb was on its way!

But I have a lot of problems with that article:

1. Yes, Tokyo's firebombing was worse. But Tokyo was essentially a tinderbox-- a forest of paper and wood. The atomic bombs showed that one single weapon could obliterate any city. There are important psychological and practical effects to that.

2. A big reason that the Japanese likely weren't pushed to surrender by the atomic bombs is that they didn't know what the fuck happened. At that point most of Japan's military leadership was secluded in a bunker and they weren't able to get a full picture of what had really happened in Hiroshima. Indeed there was some speculation that the US was exaggerating. If they had actually known fully what the Americans had done, and what they were threatening to do again and again, who knows what their reaction would have been?

3. The worst part of the article is the idea that this somehow disproves nukes as a deterrent. My usual conception of nuclear deterrence is that nukes are an amazingly powerful weapon that can literally destroy an entire country. It isn't that one nuclear bomb is so horrible. It's that theoretically we could destroy EVERY city in a country. Complete obliteration is the "deterrence" of nuclear warfare, especially with ICBMs in play. And again, nukes are just more powerful than anything else.

Hasegawa doesn't (and probably can't) bring up the cabinet meeting where Hirihito bascially overrode his govmt and told them a last-ditch stand was off the table. Was he more influenced by the Soviet declaration of war or the bomb? How about both? It was definitely one of the first rounds of the Cold War, regardless, and as I have increasingly come to think, Truman could not have afforded to NOT use the bombs since their existence would at some point or another have become public and mourning mothers and families would have excoriated him.

The worst part of the article is the idea that this somehow disproves nukes as a deterrent. My usual conception of nuclear deterrence is that nukes are an amazingly powerful weapon that can literally destroy an entire country. It isn't that one nuclear bomb is so horrible. It's that theoretically we could destroy EVERY city in a country. Complete obliteration is the "deterrence" of nuclear warfare, especially with ICBMs in play. And again, nukes are just more powerful than anything else.

― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, August 9, 2011 8:34 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark

i can't remember when 'deterrence' on that scale became the big thing. but it wasn't immediate. it may not even have been till after the worst of the cold war. either way, wasn't part of the point of dropping the bomb (and bombing dresden) to show off to the russians how hard we were?

slight self-contradiction there but ehh

yeah IANAH but showing the russians you have The Bomb would be a good way to get them on your side

The worst part of the article is the idea that this somehow disproves nukes as a deterrent.

I'm not sure that this what the article tries to do, though. Had we publicly had the bomb in Dec '41 would they have foregone Pearl Harbor? Probably. At this point, he's saying that the Japanese decision to surrender instead of fighting it out was more about the fear of their neighbor (and recent victim) getting territory off of them than about nuclear bombs. How many bombs did they or the USSR think we had then, though?

as I have increasingly come to think, Truman could not have afforded to NOT use the bombs since their existence would at some point or another have become public and mourning mothers and families would have excoriated him.

just naive thinking i suppose, but i always wonder what would have been the problem with demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb OUTSIDE of a major city, as a warning shot.

then, if we had to be bloodthirsty and all of that, we could have said "we calculate that this will murder 100,000 of your citizens. we will decimate one of your major cities in 72 hours unless you surrender."

That sorta sounds like how India and Pakistan treat each other, i.e. Oh yeah? Watch us test THIS.

*punches self in face*

"Now imagine if that hadda been YOUR FACE."

hard to see the japanese high command believing it, still less surrendering on the basis of a threat, but either way the US wasn't in the business of making threats. it had already levelled tokyo.

need to go away and revise this topic though.

Very good and classical point, ZS. It's often said they chose two sites of dubious (or middling importance) and different topography 'cause they wanted to see what kind fo mayhem their gadgets would unleash in different circumstances.

My point above was that I don't think the confluence of racism and anger is well understood now. Ppl really wanted to fcuk Japan up; not just 'cause they were 'yellow', not just because of Pearl Harbor, and not just because of the atrocities that were known but because they were tenacious fighters who killed a lot of American boys.

Interesting thread this.

i thought dresden was basically revenge

I'm not sure that this what the article tries to do, though. Had we publicly had the bomb in Dec '41 would they have foregone Pearl Harbor? Probably. At this point, he's saying that the Japanese decision to surrender instead of fighting it out was more about the fear of their neighbor (and recent victim) getting territory off of them than about nuclear bombs. How many bombs did they or the USSR think we had then, though?

― publier les (suggest) bans de (Michael White), Tuesday, August 9, 2011 8:24 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark

Hasegawa’s scholarship disturbs this simple logic. If the atomic bomb alone could not compel the Japanese to submit, then perhaps the nuclear deterrent is not as strong as it seems. In fact, Wilson argues, history suggests that leveling population centers, by whatever method, does not force surrender. The Allied firebombing of Dresden in February of 1945 killed many people, but the Germans did not capitulate. The long-range German bombing of London did not push Churchill towards acquiescence. And it is nearly impossible to imagine that a bomb detonated on American soil, even one that immolated a large city, would prompt the nation to bow in surrender.

If killing large numbers of civilians does not have a military impact, then what, Wilson asks, is the purpose of keeping nuclear weapons? We know they are dangerous. If they turn out not to be strategically effective, then nuclear weapons are not trump cards, but time bombs beneath our feet.

then, if we had to be bloodthirsty and all of that, we could have said "we calculate that this will murder 100,000 of your citizens. we will decimate one of your major cities in 72 hours unless you surrender."

― future events are now current events (Z S), Tuesday, August 9, 2011 8:27 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark

Yeah, what about the idea of blowing the top off Mt. Fuji?