Nuclear Weapons

Not necessarily the best way to phrase your point, but my parents were born in the '30s and the anti-Japanese sentiment ran very deep for many who grew up or lived through WWII. I had a half-Japanese fiancee (was stationed at Yokota AB for 3 years) it was 1989-90 timeframe. Needless to say, my parents were less than pleased. Fortunately, the relationship fell apart.

He also went off about Santa or Fanta? It was a drink that he hated. Sorry, I can't keep up with what's politically correct and isn't? If any Japanese took offense, the Baita Gaijin appologizes.

Ah Japanese women. . . . I almost married a Japanese women myself when I was over there. I'll take a Japanese woman over an American any day of the week. They really make a man feel like a King.

Let's not get away from the subject. Many believe that nuclear weapons are so horrible that we and everyone else should get rid of them. If we hadn't dropped those bombs on Japan my grandfather and my uncles might not have made it. I might not be here. No matter what anyone says about the Japanese they weren't ready to surrender. Only the Emperor had the final say and some tried to overthrow him when he made the record.

There is the world we would like to live in and the real world. Sure, no more wars with or without nuclear weapons would be great. It just isn't going to happen. I say the bomb is a good thing. It prevents another World War were millions die instead of these BS wars were thousands die.

If we had used the big one on Osama this war would be over.

^^I agree with every point of this post

My grandfather also faught in WWII and it took him along time to get over his hate for the Japanese. I think what he said is still real for alot of our elders who fought and watch as their friends die around them. They also remember the day they attacked us on our own soil so the hate is still real for some of them. Many have moved on like my grandfather but some still hold that hate and always will. I wonder how these people with this hate go shopping when everything now comes from Japan.

That's great, I just don't think that word needed to be used is all.

Really? You don't think the government would drop them just because they could? You don't believe we weren't trying to send a subtle message to the Soviet Union, saying, "hey, look what we can do?"

Do you think Eisenhower was wrong in his assessment?
On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.

On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.


The Japanese kept their Emporer, but only in a ceremonial role similar to that played by the Queen of England. The Japanese were proposing a constitutional monarchy with the Emporer retaining power as head of state, which the United States rejected (to the consternation of many of Truman's advisors). While one can debate the necessity of dropping the bomb and the relative importance of Japan's acceptance of American style republican democracy, and I think you make some good points, it is misleading to suggest that Japan maintained an imperial system after the war.

World War II was the most senseless, horrible event in human history. Over 85 million people died. Some Japanese soldiers ate American captives' limbs while they were still alive. The bombing was a culmination of extreme cruelty and violence - on both sides - that is inconceivable by today's standards. My point being that you can't divorce the bombing from this context, and I can understand why the United States was willing to act as punatively as was possible at the time, even if it the argument that it was not completely necessary historically has some merit.

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

Bravo sir, nicely-well-done.

The Japanese kept their Emporer, but only in a ceremonial role similar to that played by the Queen of England. The Japanese were proposing a constitutional monarchy with the Emporer retaining power as head of state, which the United States rejected (to the consternation of many of Truman's advisors). While one can debate the necessity of dropping the bomb and the relative importance of Japan's acceptance of American style republican democracy, and I think you make some good points, it is misleading to suggest that Japan maintained an imperial system after the war.

World War II was the most senseless, horrible event in human history. Over 85 million people died. Some Japanese soldiers ate American captives' limbs while they were still alive. The bombing was a culmination of extreme cruelty and violence - on both sides - that is inconceivable by today's standards. My point being that you can't divorce the bombing from this context, and I can understand why the United States was willing to act as punatively as was possible at the time, even if it the argument that it was not completely necessary historically has some merit.

Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

This is a fantastic read (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf) from the evil NSA no less.

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

They may have said they wanted to surrender, but they were trying to break the Soviet & American alliance to bring the Russians onto their side. They were by no means finished.

They had no illusions about winning the war they just wanted to stop fighting it. They hoped to inflict so many casualties on the Americans that we would sign an armistice. They still had an airforce and a huge army. They hadn't run out of bullets either. Alot of their industry had been moved underground because we had firebombed them long before we used nuclear weapons. Had they known we only had two they might not have even surrendered then.

When I went to the peace museum in Hiroshima they stated the reasons that we dropped the bomb. It was to reduce our casualties and to end the war. The Japanese are very upfront about this and I don't understand why they would lie about an event that they experienced. The officers I spoke with in the Japanese Defense Forces came to the same conclusion.

You say that the dropping of the Atom bombs was just a political move but since when has war been non-political? War isn't just mindless bloodshed. It's economic, political, and psychological.

Droping an atom bomb on the Japanese was all of those. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial cities. Hiroshima is a major port. Why spend millions on a weapons program and not see if it's viable, especially when you're in a major war and you're already broke? Why let the Japanese go home thinking they really hadn't been defeated like the Germans did in 1918? Why let the Japanese military / political leadership stay in power so they could plot and scheme like the Germans did?

Truman was an artillery officer during the First World War and understood the difference between a surrender and an armistice. In the end it was the Russians who finished them off not the A-bombs.

Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

This is a fantastic read (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf) from the evil NSA no less.
Good read. However this article is definitely not the official position of NSA and the author is still classified. The author also makes some assumptions in the article towards the end that make me question either the judgement or motive of the writer. While the author brings up some good points, the whole paragraph about the "high ranking official" being a "bird colonel" isn't accurate and certainly doesn't smell right. A colonel is by no means a "high ranking officer" in DC. If you don't have stars on your shoulders you're not even close. I also noted this article was listed on the same list with articles about extraterrestrial intelligence and extraterrestrial messages.

The debate about the decision to use the A-bomb has been going on since it's use and will certainly continue throughout our lifetimes. Neither side will change the other's position.