re: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Animated

quote:

---

Destroy their naval ports and then blockade the island.

---

You realize how insane the Japanese leaders and civilians were at that time?

quote:

---

and if you ask me, the right choice to make even if they surrendered beforehand.

---

well thank christ no one asked you back then

quote:

---

Couple that with the fanaticism of the populous and that strategy would've taken a decade to conclude.

---

Yep.

We helped end the war the most humane and quickest way we could considering the circumstances.

Had the Soviets not declared war on Japan two days after Hiroshima, they may have continued to take punishment regardless of how many bombs were dropped.

quote:

---

This thread is full of idiots, fake ethicists, fake military strategists, warmongers, retards, fake intellectuals, and one very stupid lawyer egging it all on.

---

You're right, sir, this is, in fact, the OT.

quote:

---

I can't believe anyone actually thought starving the Japanese out would be more moral than bombing them.

---

Exactly. Would not have worked against a culture that celebrated death as an honor to their emperor as well as their ancestors. Talk about horrific casualties.

quote:

---

Would not have worked against a culture that celebrated death as an honor to their emperor as well as their ancestors.

---

Yep, imagine Okinawa on a much larger scale.

quote:

---

Okinawa became the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. More than 100,000 Japanese died, a frightening number matched only by the tally of unfortunate Okinawan citizens who perished in the fighting. Army casualties of more than 4,600 dead and 18,000 wounded were almost equaled by 3,200 Marines dead and 13,700 wounded. Even the Navy, which avoided the horrendous ground combat, lost almost 5,000 dead and 4,900 wounded to kamikaze attacks. Ironically, though Okinawa was a victory for the United States, its extremely large toll shocked military strategists. If Okinawa produced such carnage, what might happen when American forces stepped onto Japanese home soil? That dreadful thought hung over every Pacific battler, and lessened opposition among high government and military figures to using the atomic bomb in hopes of ending the war.

---

LINK

We were given a preview of the invasion there.

quote:

---

Would not have worked against a culture that celebrated death as an honor to their emperor as well as their ancestors. Talk about horrific casualties.

---

It could have resulted in the complete extermination of the Japanese race.

From a story published in December 1946:

quote:

---

EXPLORE
If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used
Was Japan already beaten before the August 1945 bombings?

By Karl T. Compton
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (Library of Congress)
DECEMBER 1946 ISSUE
SHARE
SAVED STORIES
SAVE
Editor’s Note: President Harry S. Truman responded to this article in the weeks after it was published.
Magazine Cover image
View This Story as a PDF
See this story as it appeared in the pages of The Atlantic magazine.

Open
About a week after V-J Day, I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."

"Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you."

"What would have happened then?" we asked.

He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender.

---

Full article at https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/

quote:

---

I respect your introspection. There's another poster on this very thread who could learn a thing or two from you.

---

From a know it all. That’s rich.

quote:

---

The sourcing on this is history. Read up on the two components f Operation Downfall. There you will find the estimates of Allied casualties along with estimates of Japanese military and civilian casualties.

---

I just did. This is one of the proposed plans for invasion that was most popular and put into place before the bomb was used. Do you realize that there were other plans? The Navy wanted to blockade and continue bombing. But people wanted the war ended quickly, so they were pushing for an invasion.

That is the odd thing about discussing this topic. People say things like I don't understand the circumstances at the time. But the truth is that none of this was simple decisions. Many in the leadership did not want to invade and many did not want to use the bomb (once or twice). These were controversial decisions that were not popular. To act like they were no brainers or were proven to be right is too simple. None of us can say what would have happened otherwise. It wasn't one way of the other though.

quote:

---

Blockade and starve out a mostly agrarian society. No. Even so, most would have gladly died for their emperor.

---

Why didn't we bomb the capital and the imperial castle? Why target mostly civilian targets?

The starving part is on them. You blockade and take away their ability to wage war. You demand they surrender and claim victory. If they starve, that is on them. You give them options. That's different than intentionally nuking them. I am not sure why I have to explain the difference.