The Atom Bomb vs. Operation Downfall

[Scorpiоn]

I was going to post about this the other day, but I was offline, and the Hiroshima thread has reminded me about it.

First off, there's no denying this is a touchy subject.  We can joke around about Pearl Harbor if we wanted to, because Zeroes aren't going to be flying and attacking the base in any of our lifetimes, but nuclear weapons are still a threat to humanity (or so we're told).  With that said, I hope no one will get hot-headed as seen in the past.

Now...

I defend the use of the atom bomb, as I do believe it seriously saved lives.  I'm not sure, but I believe in many instances more persihed in American and British firestorms than in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6th and 9th of August.

Had Opeation Downfall ensued, apart from battle between uniformed armies, would the civilian population really have rushed foward to sacrifice their lives?  While the Kamikaze attacks paint one picture, a series I watched the other day had interviews with several veteran aces, including Saburo Sakai, who said that generally, most pilots did not really want to sacrifice themselves, but they followed orders.  If a trained serviceman was unenthusiastic about giving his life, would the civilian population really flood foward?

Also, while much of the IJA on the Japanese mainland was well trained and equipped, could it have been an instance resembling the Gulf War II (Iraq's current state)?  Where the Republican Gaurd was a fanatical and dedicated force, however, as American forces rolled in...  nothing.

Could the IJA really have put up a resistance strong enough to inflict casualties heavy enough to make America reconsider its invasion?  Japan, in rough contrast to Western Europe, is very rugged and defendable land - land ill suited to armoured vehicles, and excellent for a retreating army on foot.  Criteria that matched Japanese forces well.

I think I've already run off on a tangent, and I'm quite tired.  I think I'll turn in and continue this mess of a topic tomorrow when I haven't lost all mental focus.

[Felix/FFDS]

On the other hand, I believe that an invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for all parties concerned.  Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa had already shown the fanaticism of the Japanese soldier.  When confronted against the invasion of his own soil, I believe the Japanese would have shown equal ferocity.

Remember that there were scores of suicide weapons - launches, airplanes, etc., that were found.  Also, many more - civilians - would have preferred death before submission.  It was only the Emperor's calm order that avoided a bloodbath when the surrender came.  Even Saburo Sakai, in his biography stated that he rushed to his apartment to find his young bride ready to commit suicide.

[SilverFox441]

I think that the civvie population would have been a greater threat then the regular military...the regs had a pretty good idea of their personal chances in a suicide attack or a human wave...the civvies had no real concept about what they would be facing.

It's like the most skilled swordsman in the world...he doesn't fear the second most skilled, he fears the worst skilled...the guy who is completely unpredicatable.

[Scorpiоn]

I haven't done a whole lot of research, but logic and the few things I have read are quite sobering.  Suicide torpedoes, "Hegdehog Warfare" (or something to that effect) and Japanese dressed as Americans giving false messages over American channels.  Absolute chaos it seems.

Logic would say if the Marines took such high casualties invading isolated islands alone, what would the casualties be if the Mainland itself were invaded?

I just wonder, again going back to Sakai's testimony, does Sakai ridicule Japan in order to save face (the same way no German veterans ever believed in fascism after 1945) and he was actually a fanatic as stereotypes suggest, or does he speak for the maority of the Japanese population with his unenthusiastic attitude?  Sure, when you're surrounded by the Japanese Empire, you'll go along with chanting whatever they throw at you, but when the time comes...  One could look at the POW and surrender rates of the Japanese in previous operations, but some would argue the Americans were taking no prisoners.

Operation Downfall

[Wing Nut]

Without trying to make this political, our government has a way of making things much worse than they sound in order to justify their actions.  Kamikazees actually weren't very effective.  Very few of them really actually hit their targets.  Most of those secret weapons you hear about Japan having were not near enoughin production to be put into widespread use, even if a protracted invasion occured.  How the populace would have reacted to an invasion?  I do not know.  I do know that an effective demonstration could have been made without using a city as a target.  Japan is littered with islands that are scarcely populated and would have been (imho) a lot better than causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and CHILDREN.  

I tend to be of a more conservative bent, with the notable exception of several issues.  But when it comes to this, I do not believe the US was wrong in dropping the bombs, but I do believe our choice of targets is circumspect.  If the world were to try us for it, I doubt we would win.

[Stormtropper]

I think that if we invaded Japan, we might have had to kill every single Japanese, man woman and children, because under their codes, or something, the will fight to the last man..................or commit suicide.

[Felix/FFDS]

I think that if we invaded Japan, we might have had to kill every single Japanese, man woman and children, because under their codes, or something, the will fight to the last man..................or commit suicide.

Actually, there is reason to believe that there was about to have been a major reshuffling of those in power, that would have resulted in an approach to the Allies to cease hostilities - in effect, a surrender.  THis was appreantly either not know by the Allies, or not known with reliability, so that the orders to use the atomic bombs were given.

This scenario could pose an interesting "what if"?  If the Japanese had surrendered without the use of nucelar bombs, how would the world situation have developed?  Would bombs have been used in later conflicts?  WHO would have used them - first?

[jimclarke]

[quote]I do know that an effective demonstration could have been made without using a city as a target.

[Hagar]

[quote]Back then most people didn't care if we had killed them all and many hoped that we would.

[Wing Nut]

I want one person to give me a logical reason why those bombs had to be dropped on innocent civilians when dropping them in an unpopulated area would have served as just an effective demonstration.  In my mind, there is nothing that will ever justify it.

[RichieB16]

I don't think we really knew what kind of distruction the bomb was going to cause, with only one test before it was dropped (in a completely uninhabited area) it was really an unknown.  I'm sure they had no idea of the long term effects.  Also, it sounds terrible, but I'll bet after fighting for several years like that-we wern't too concerned about the loss of civilian lives (since they were a potential enemy in the event of invasion).  Many American's truly hated the Japanese people, so I don't imagine there was too much concern.  I have heard several interesting comments from one of my relatives (I'm not going to post what he said) about his feelings about the bomb-and I'll bet many people felt the same way as him (he fought in the Pacific for 3 years).  

It's sad that it happened, but I really believe that it needed to be done.  In the long run, I feel that it saved more lives than it lost.  I've read that there was an estimated 1 million American solders would have been killed in an invasion along with countless Japanese.  

I suppose I probably have a unique outlook on such events since my family has a very rich military history and I had relatives who were involved in such events.  But, I find it sad that it was ever neccessary and I hope and pray that we have learned something from the past and are now wise enough to solve our problems differently.

[Scorpiоn]

As cruel as it sounds: to kill.

We (Allies) could have also just have carpet bombed an island with 700 aircraft and said, "This can happen to one of your cities", but we instead bombed cities with 700 aircraft, and warned of an encore.  The problem I have with the morality of the atom bomb, is I'm promted to ask to morality of a firestorm.  Given the choice, I'd prefer the former.

I still doubt the Japanese's hypothetical resolve in an invasion, while I'm sure many would have come foward (just like with the "Home Guard" service during the BoB), those who remained idle, I think, would have probably accepted (begrudgingly, obviously) the invaders, albiet with higher than average suicide rates (self inflicted or in a self-sacrificing attack), as did the Poles, French, Chinese...

[Wing Nut]

The difference between those lives that would have been lost and the lives that were lost is that those who fall into the 'Would Have ' category were soldiers.  To be blunt, it's their job to risk their lives to fulfill their duty.  Those that were killed were civilians.  In every war until recently, the lives of civilians were held as sacrosanct.  Civilians and non-combatants were not to be touched.  But the US disobeyed that conviction.  We even broke the rules of the Geneva convention by attacking civilians.  I understand that many lives may have been saved, and that is good, but at what cost?

There is also the theory that the whole thing was a message to Stalin, and to show HIM what we could do...  

I am a loyal American.  I love my country, I have served in the military, and I hold the people in the military in the highest regard.  But I do not believe the US was right in this case and I don't think I ever will.

[Woodlouse2002]

The simple fact that the US had to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki is proof enough that they had to be dropped on inhabited areas. With a new weapon like that you need a really effective demonstration for your enemy to sit up and listen. Wiping out an uninhabited island would not have had nearly the same effect as dropping it on a city. For the Japanise to surrender you needed to prove that you were willing to destroy entire city's in one blow. If one of the off-shore islands were destroyed and maybe a couple of hundren farmers were killed no one would have taken any notice. Tokyo had been fire bombed with over 500,000 people killed and still the japs refused to surrender. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was the ultimate warning which still they did not heed and therefore another bomb had to be dropped on Nagasaki.

Basically the targets were the only ones that would make the japanise consider giving up and therefore, in my mind, were justified.