Nuclear Weapons

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

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 from the evil NSA no less.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

This is a fantastic read 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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

Did you read the article or did you scan it? What is the official position of the NSA? What does the author's name tell you? What assumptions does the author make? I think he has provided citations. As far as the "bird colonel" I believe he's a transition and exemplary character in the translation chain.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Did you read the article or did you scan it? What is the official position of the NSA? What does the author's name tell you? What assumptions does the author make? I think he has provided citations. As far as the "bird colonel" I believe he's a transition and exemplary character in the translation chain.

- Yes I read it.
- I don't believe NSA has an offical position on this matter. If they did, I'm sure it would be that the U.S. dropped the bombs to minimize casualties and obtain a Japanese surrender.
- It would be intresting to know the name of the author to find out background info on him/her and read other info published by him/her.
- The author assumes how "U.S. officials" interpreted Suzuki's statement (U.S. officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki's statement and obviously seeing it as another typical example of the fanatical Banzai and Kamikaze spirit decided on stern measures....)and makes the reach that the possible mis-interpretation of Suzuki's statement was the major factor in the decision to drop the first A-bomb.
- The paragraph about the "bird colonel" is quite a reach also. The author must've been watching one too many war movies.

Let's not forget who the aggressor was in the pacific theater of WWII. If the Japanese had the A-bomb before us, what do you think would've happened? Also consider the atrocities they committed on the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, not to mention U.S. POWs.
Estimates of U.S. casualties alone in invading Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island were 63,000. This doesn't include Japanese casualties which would be at least the same. How many lives on both sides were lost taking Okinawa? How many would've been lost attacking the mainland?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- Yes I read it.
- I don't believe NSA has an offical position on this matter. If they did, I'm sure it would be that the U.S. dropped the bombs to minimize casualties and obtain a Japanese surrender.
- It would be intresting to know the name of the author to find out background info on him/her and read other info published by him/her.
- The author assumes how "U.S. officials" interpreted Suzuki's statement (U.S. officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki's statement and obviously seeing it as another typical example of the fanatical Banzai and Kamikaze spirit decided on stern measures....)and makes the reach that the possible mis-interpretation of Suzuki's statement was the major factor in the decision to drop the first A-bomb.
- The paragraph about the "bird colonel" is quite a reach also. The author must've been watching one too many war movies.

Let's not forget who the aggressor was in the pacific theater of WWII. If the Japanese had the A-bomb before us, what do you think would've happened? Also consider the atrocities they committed on the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, not to mention U.S. POWs.
Estimates of U.S. casualties alone in invading Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island were 63,000. This doesn't include Japanese casualties which would be at least the same. How many lives on both sides would've been lost taking Okinawa? The mainland?

We did take Okinawa and it was brutal.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

This is a fantastic read from the evil NSA no less.

Who gives a hoot about some article? The Japanese themselves state in their Peace Museum in Hiroshima the reason that we dropped the bomb. It's there for everyone to see. It's written in several different languages. Who's trying to upstage who? Are you saying the Japanese are not being honest to the whole world about their own history as far as the bomb is concerned?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Who gives a hoot about some article? The Japanese themselves state in there Peace Museum in Hiroshima the reason that we dropped the bomb. It's there for everyone to see. It's written in several different languages. Who's trying to upstage who? Are you saying the Japanese are not being honest to the whole world about their own history as far as the bomb is concerned?

I care about some article and I would care about your claims if they were backed up with citations. At this point, an unclassified document written by an anonymous author at the NSA has more credibility than you.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

We did take Okinawa and it was brutal.

Correction made, my error. Thx.

[GTripp0012]

Paul Wolfowitz wrote a great article back in the late 90's about this, essentially arguing that everyone is at an equilibrium point right now, because people understand the responsibility of having nuclear weapons. The problem comes if/when terrorists get a hold of them with the plans to use them. It doesn't matter if all countries have a nuclear program, as long as nuclear weapons are HIGHLY regulated and always accounted for, the threat of nuclear war will remain just a threat. As soon as we start having weapons that are developed and unaccounted for, then we have a major political problem.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

I care about some article and I would care about your claims if they were backed up with citations. At this point, an unclassified document written by an anonymous author at the NSA has more credibility than you.

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you go. My citation is made of concrete and is visited by thousands of people every year. I've been there and I read why we dropped the bomb according to the Japanese. Anonymous authors only have authority in your mind.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- Yes I read it.
- I don't believe NSA has an offical position on this matter. If they did, I'm sure it would be that the U.S. dropped the bombs to minimize casualties and obtain a Japanese surrender.
- It would be intresting to know the name of the author to find out background info on him/her and read other info published by him/her.
- The author assumes how "U.S. officials" interpreted Suzuki's statement (U.S. officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki's statement and obviously seeing it as another typical example of the fanatical Banzai and Kamikaze spirit decided on stern measures....)and makes the reach that the possible mis-interpretation of Suzuki's statement was the major factor in the decision to drop the first A-bomb.
- The paragraph about the "bird colonel" is quite a reach also. The author must've been watching one too many war movies.

Let's not forget who the aggressor was in the pacific theater of WWII. If the Japanese had the A-bomb before us, what do you think would've happened? Also consider the atrocities they committed on the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, not to mention U.S. POWs.
Estimates of U.S. casualties alone in invading Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island were 63,000. This doesn't include Japanese casualties which would be at least the same. How many lives on both sides were lost taking Okinawa? How many would've been lost attacking the mainland?

I don't think the author assume anything. I think my next read will be The Fall of Japan by William Craig. Again, the bird colonel is a symbolic figure. The pressure on subordinates by upper management is real as evident by the whole Iraq WMD fiasco.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you go. My citation is made of concrete and is visited by thousands of people every year. I've been there and I read why we dropped the bomb according to the Japanese. Anonymous authors only have authority in your mind.

Very clever but I'm inquiring as to your claim that they claim "[the reason why we dropped the bomb] was to reduce our casualties and to end the war." An anonymous NSA author still have more creditability but that might be due to your past transgressions against sensibility. Let's just say I am doubtful when it comes to everything.