[talmand]

Yes, nuclear weapons used on a nation that started the war, total war I might add, with the US as well as numerous other nations in their vicinity in an effort to dominate and possibly remove the populace through violence.

But I suppose the better option was to conduct a land invasion of Japan which would have likely led to much more death and destruction. It seems the people of Germany had a positive note to consider while they were sifting through the rubble of their cities after the extensive carpet bombings the Allies conducted when they invaded their country; at least they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons.

It just bothers me when someone mentions that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population in anger but not offer any sort of context as to why they did such a thing. Without context you are heavily implying that the US government just randomly decided to nuke civilians just for kicks. Which is quite sad since you are essentially doing the very thing you complain about in your second sentence, willfully forgetting your history.

[DSingularity]

it wasnt the only option. naval blockade, starving them of critical wartime resources like oil/rubber/many others would have also ended the war....

[talmand]

To produce such a result much death and destruction would have had to continue to create the blockade and then to enforce it. Since we're guessing here on possible outcomes of what ifs, I would think it likely that would have resulted in famine among the civilian population.

Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place.

But I agree, it wasn't the only option. They could have waged the same war to the bitter end, starved them out, use nukes, asked nicely for them to stop, or who knows how many more. Options were presented, an option was chosen.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with my complaint of lack of context of the reasoning for using nuclear weapons at the time.

[madaxe]

> Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place.

Conspiracy theory? Pearl Harbor, in the form of the attack on a US territory quite so distant from Japanese interests, came about as a result of the US embargo on Japanese use of the panama canal, and their import of metal and oil. The attack happened during the negotiations between the Japan and US about the embargoes, which were not going remotely well for Japan.

Ultimately, it was Japan's hostile action, but the embargoes directly precipitated the military reaction. Had the US completely ignored Japan (not that that would have been a good thing - ultimately the US did the world a service in ending their brutal expansion), the US would not have been drawn into war with them at that point, or likely for years hence, if ever, as the USSR would likely have taken care of it, or, hell, maybe even allied with the US throughout a quick and decisive war - the Japanese would have (and nearly did, on Aug 9th '45) crumbled under that opposing force. Wouldn't that have been a world.

[talmand]

You are correct, the conspiracy theory I'm referring to was the US government was deliberately doing such things in an effort to spur the Japanese to attack a US target for justification to enter the war. Up until Pearl Harbor the American people had little desire to enter the war, which obviously changed in a big way after the attack. I should have been clearer.

The fun part of the conspiracy was the fact that the all-important aircraft carriers were not in port for the attack.

Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with the theory, just mentioning it.

But your what-if at the end there, that is one that would be interesting to consider the outcomes of that potential path of history.

[gurvinder]

land invasion was not necessary, as Japan was very close to surrender any ways. using nuclear weapons was not needed to end the war.

[talmand]

I would say their war tactics and public statements leading up to the nuclear bombings would suggest that surrender wasn't in high regard with the people that counted. Especially among a military with a warrior mentality where surrender was considered shameful. These were people, including civilians, that would throw themselves off of cliffs to avoid capture.

The US military warned the populace numerous times that their cities would be firebombed. I would assume this was an effort to push towards surrender. Why else warn them? No surrender.

Before the first bombing the Japanese government was told to surrender. No surrender.

After the first bombing, a demand to surrender was made. No surrender.

The second bombing and another demand to surrender. Around five days later the Emperor finally told the people of Japan that surrender was necessary. Know why it was almost a week later, even though they were told more were coming? Because the Emperor wanted to stay Emperor.

That's the part that people don't seem to understand. The nuclear bombings were not intended to convince the Japanese populace to surrender, because many might have on their own without the bombings. Even many in the military might have been willing to surrender. It is said that Yamamoto despaired attacking America from the beginning. But more than likely, none of them would have surrendered until the Emperor told them to do so. In the end, the nuclear bombs were to convince the Emperor to surrender, not the people. Even facing this threat of total destruction he still held out for his own selfish reasons, and even then claimed he was doing it to save mankind. The simple fact this statement of saving mankind came from a military leader who's policy seemed to be maim, torture, and kill anyone that wasn't Japanese is one of the most brazen attempts at spin that's ever been tried.

Never mind the fact that the Soviets were ready and willing to invade. You can ask the Germans how that went for them.

Now, I've heard of this thought that there are examples of the Japanese willing to come to a peace agreement. But suing for peace is a different matter than total surrender. Peace agreements with the aggressor often have a problem of leading to future conflicts when the peace agreement no longer holds true. Ask the Koreans how they feel about their "peace agreement" with the never-ending threat of war, as comical as it may seem.

Think of the times; America had suffered huge losses in men and wealth to fight two massive fronts in a war they didn't start. Don't forget the millions, I'll say it again, MILLIONS, of people that died at the hands of the Germans and Japanese. The war in Europe was mostly over and the only reason for that is because Hitler was dead, many Germans fought to the bitter end even though it was obvious they were going to lose. No one wanted a repeat of the ending days of the European theater in Japan. The people around the world wanted that crap to end as soon as possible. You have to understand that the Allies at this point had built up such hatred for the Japanese that many would not have a problem whatsoever invading and killing every man, woman, and child of that small island nation. It would have cost dearly to do so, but it would have been done. The likely outcome is that the Japanese people would have become the human equivalent of an endangered species.

So all this talk of they could have done this, they could have done that, or whatever else all has the benefit of seriously strong hindsight.

I agree, nuclear weapons were not needed to end the war, but considering the other options, it was probably the best choice at the time.

[madaxe]

The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was not necessary. They could have chosen a military target. The shock and awe of losing an entire division would have been entirely adequate, and Japan was ready to surrender after Hiroshima - Nagasaki is utterly unsupportable, given the USSR's declaration of war, and Japan's impending capitulation.

I know the history perfectly well, hence my view.

[talmand]

Well, if you know the history so well then by all means show some context when you make such a blatant partisan statement.

Anyway, a quick look at Wikipedia gives us this.

During World War II, the 2nd General Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.

Looks like a military target to me. They just lacked the foresight not to locate such assets within a civilian population. Sadly, the US does the same thing.

Granted, Nagasaki didn't seem to have quite as much in military assets but it is listed it had 9000 soldiers in the city. Sadly that came nowhere near the number of civilians in the city, which included a number of POWs. I wouldn't have picked it as a target.

But if you want to demonstrate the destruction caused by a weapon in an effort to force surrender, you don't bomb a soft target. You unfortunately bomb the biggest target you can. During WWII firebombings of entire cities was a common practice. That is common in total war scenarios.

Personally, if I were in a position to have some influence on the matter at the time, I would have said the same. I would have nuked any military target of suitable size and hoped that it would suffice to force surrender.

But, as I stated elsewhere, this discussion has little to do with my initial complaint of stating the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons in anger with no context to explain the reasoning behind it.