It would have worked, but the humanity of such an action is open to question, at best. It's very hard to criticize these decisions based on hindsight. Historians know how close Japan was to tottering, but asking our military to plan based on that, even in the unlikely event they did know it, is unfair. The idea was to win quickly. Stalin was always the lesser of two evils, so I can understand wanting to renege on an invitation to help. I forget how the USSR ended up with their part of the Kuriles, though, and it wasn't as if Stalin retreated from Eastern Europe, so maybe the idea of intimidating the Soviets with our alleged nuclear arsenal is overstated. The "he started it" doctrine is usually rejected, but people forget that World War II was a total war on both sides. "A World At Arms" notes that, while the Japanese attempt to drop incendiaries on the Canadian and Northwest American forests didn't work, and sort of seems comical now, it was the thought that counted. It would have been miniscule in terms of infrastructure, let alone military impact, but in theory it would have been a civilian disaster. Besides, Japan started the war. Sow the wind, and all that.
Japan had plenty of food. What they needed were raw materials, mineral, and oil. Let me help: (WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE) http://www.redearth.webtol.com/bataan.html Did you visit Nanking, too? I had a great uncle who survived the Death March. There's your 'testament to the resilience of the human spirit.'
I read in the same article that they were expecting at most 100,000 casualties, not KIA in the first 10 hours of Operation Olympic invading the southern island, Honshu (right?). At the time, 100,000 was one quarter of the ENTIRE US Marine Corps.
To expand on the post by the GrandInquisitor: the reason for insistence on unconditional surrender was due in part to the lesson learned from world war 1. Germany capitulated without any invasion, and Hitler was soon blaming the defeat on the jews and other 'traitors', and saying that they never even lost a battle on German soil. Total defeat of Japan was essential to prevent such a recurrence, and letting them find a face-saving way out would have been a big mistake. Japan needed to know that they lost the war absolutely and positively. They also needed to know that they got punished for such horrendous acts like Nanking and Bataan. They're lucky that their country wasn't totally destroyed like Germany was, they deserved every bit of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and lots more.
So how would you classify Eisenhower and MacCarther: pacifist, unabashedly anti-American, or just a fvcking moron?
Eisenhower: OK strategist. Decent. Main ability was holding the Allies together. Supreme Commander Allied Forces, EUROPE. Offering his professional opinion about a war he's not fighting agaisnt an enemy he's never fought on the other side of the world. Fighting the Germans wasn't nearly as savage as fighting the Japaneese. MacArthur: Well, when did he say it? As BenReilly mentioned, he sure wasn't shy about wanting to nuke Chinese bridgeheads over the Yalu in Korea. And he was, shall we say, a little put out at Truman's decision to relieve him from command there.
For those with some time on their hands: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp What the military professionals (from an Army perspective) of WWII thought about the endgame in Japan, and what's still taught to the high levels of Army Leadership today. (cgsc = Command and General Staff College) I think it largely debunks the notion of 'starving Japan out', tries to clarify just what was mean by 'unconditional surrender', and that those casualty numbers a few on this thread have derided as 'rubbish' were taken quite seriously by our leaders.
Obviously they knew that radiation was dangerous. And they knew that that it was dangerous to exposed adults over some period of time. But did they realize that it would be affecting people decades after being exposed? And did they realize that it would affect the offspring of those who were exposed. Probably not. We didn't know about DNA until the 50's.
I can't bring myself to second-guess the decision when I consider the three-month battle to secure Okinawa in April-June 1945 and the impact that Japanese desparation and suicidal tactics must have played on the US military as well as US civilian leadership. I think it is a mistake to view this in hindsight simply on the basis of tactics and not consider the emotional hardening of hearts and minds. It was total war, an environment with which I am thankfully and blissfully ignorant, as is I woudl guess everyone else here.
As someone who's preparing to spend an academic career studying security situations in East Asia, let me just say that I really hate this topic. Primarily because (as Alex so ably demonstrated) many of the arguments and hypotheticals used in any discussion of it involve false, and frequently anywhere from borderline to blatantly racist, perceptions of Japan. Personally, I believe that Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have never happened if the Japanese were white.
Interesting final remark. Do you speak any Asian languages by any chance? Just about to sign up for Mandarin. ITS FREE!!! Isn't that nice?
Because white people would have been too smart to attack Pearl Harbor? Or they wouldn't have been so savage in their treatment of their victims? No, that doesn't make sense, the Nazis were white. Hmmm....I wonder what he's implying......
Do you think if Russia hadn't broken through at Stalingrad, or were repulsed at Kursk, and D-Day stalled, we would not have used nukes on Germany? I know the situations wouldn't be completely analogous, and such a counterfactual is rendered practically useless due to the myriad of variables, but I'm curious as to your opinion.
So if Japan and Germany were reversed, and Germany has the same political and cultural characteristics as did Japan, with the only change being skin color, then USA invades the island of Germany rather than dropping the bombs? Or it does a demonstration of atomic power? That's your position?
Uh huh. Can an Admin add that smiley with the circling index finger around the ear indicating a loonie ASAP please? Thanks.
Is this your well thought out contribution to the post? Although it does seem as if C-Towner has got to get in here and clarify, he's taking some heat.
Hey speedy, you don't mind if I call you speedy do you? Consider that rhetorical, or speedo, yes I think I'll alternate. So speedo, you agree I'm sure (this thread being strangely anomalous) that the politics board is full of sniping and supposed witticisms and no real constructive discourse? Yes? Me too. So when people here can behave with the class of myself and Inthenet maybe we'll get somewhere. So ban Gringo Tex, Dan Loney, Superdave and their piteous lickspittles, and maybe we'll get somewhere. I leave this matter between poster and administration in your venerable hands speedy. Thanks.
I say make the last time the US' throwing of nukes an exception, and move on. After all it happened some 70 years ago. It's very hard to judge what's right or what's wrong based on the historical circumstances. But morally the action itself should be condemned. But from now on, as in this modern world, we should denounce every attempt or fantacy to use it, no matter by whom, including USA. Fair enough? There must be an international effort to destroy the nuclear weapons. There is no excuse to coutinue to research and develop this mass killing weapon by humans on this earth.