TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... omic-bombs

But we did it anyway, says Los Angeles Times. Japan would have surrendered without dropping the bomb.

I refuse to accept any form of revisionist history meant to dumb down the actual event leading up to an event.

Japan was almost ready with their own bomb and our firebombing their cities prevented them from having a functional version as they had to move testing to Chosin Revisor. We had exactly two choices after their populace participated at Okinawa. Bomb them into unconditional surrender, or bleed another 100k plus lives on either side until we could get the, to quit.

I’m at peace with how we did it, and glad we haven’t had to since.

Here’s a link to story
https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-f ... story.html

It's real easy to armchair quarterback 80 years after the fact. If this was true, why did Japan , not surrender after the first bomb? Did any of the US generals who condemned the bombing, resign, beforehand?
Japan, gave no outward indication, that they were looking to surrender, and in fact had been training civilians, to repel, an American invasion.
There never surrender tactics, on every Pacific island, would not give rise to optimism, that they would suddenly change.
I have no doubt that talks were underway, and that the Soviet's entry into the war on Japan, also played a role, but the Japanese had plenty of opportunities, before the bombs were dropped.

I don't trust the LA Times, to report it any other way, than to try and show the US, as a war mongering nation, intent upon killing innocent people. They are just an extension of Antifa.

philip964 wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:45 pm https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... omic-bombs

But we did it anyway, says Los Angeles Times. Japan would have surrendered without dropping the bomb.

My uncle was excited when we dropped the bomb. He was assigned to go in the night before the invasion of japan and clear the beaches of mines and obstacles for the landing. They were told they would suffer a 100% casualty rate. As it was, his united helped clear the beaches after the war and suffered 50% casualties. He stayed in Japan several years after the war and even married a Japanese lady. He said the Japanese would not have surrendered without the bombs.

Unlike the armchair quarterbacks at the LA Times, who likely never did anything more dangerous than drive home drunk from a Brentwood cocktail party, my dad had fought the Japanese on Iwo Jima, and was training for the invasion of the Japanese mainland when the bombs were dropped. Through a friend in naval intelligence, he was privy to the the facts on the ground in Japan before the surrender.

My dad became a pacifist after the war, but he never stopped believing that the bombs saved his life (and mine by extension). The editors at the times can go have unnatural relations.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:02 pm Unlike the armchair quarterbacks at the LA Times, who likely never did anything more dangerous than drive home drunk from a Brentwood cocktail party, my dad had fought the Japanese on Iwo Jima, and was training for the invasion of the Japanese mainland when the bombs were dropped. Through a friend in naval intelligence, he was privy to the the facts on the ground in Japan before the surrender.

My dad became a pacifist after the war, but he never stopped believing that the bombs saved his life (and mine by extension). The editors at the times can go have unnatural relations.

I agree.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:02 pm My dad became a pacifist after the war, but he never stopped believing that the bombs saved his life (and mine by extension).

My granddad was the same. He fought in the Pacific war and Korea, became a pacifist and firmly believed that the bombs saved his life. For myself I am less certain, but I wasn't there either.

The Japanese didn't have to bomb Pearl Harbor.

A few interesting thoughts:

1) Dropping Little Boy was probably a poor idea. It was a lower yield, higher reliability weapon which I argue would've been better kept as a failsafe should Fat Man have proven a dud (i.e. dropped on the lost weapon in order to prevent capture and reverse engineering). I think that the third implosion weapon after the Gadget and Fat Man was a fizzle.

2) The USSR declared war on Japan as soon as it was in their interest to do so, essentially seizing territory for the coming Cold War. Forcing a quick surrender was not only in our interest, but also in the interest of the areas occupied by the Japanese as well as Japan itself. Japan looks like West Germany rather than East Germany largely because they surrendered to the US. A protracted land war could've easily resulted in a fully communist Korea and/or Hokkaido.

3) There was no reason to waste that kind of destructive power on a demonstration (i.e. the countryside near Kyoto) without the guarantee that it would result in Japan's immediate surrender. After Okinawa and the lack of any peace overtures following the annihilation of Tokyo, the US could not have been certain that Japan would surrender after seeing the Bomb.

Jusme wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:29 pm It's real easy to armchair quarterback 80 years after the fact. If this was true, why did Japan , not surrender after the first bomb? Did any of the US generals who condemned the bombing, resign, beforehand?

Exactly.
How many lives, American and others, have been wasted in other conflicts since then because of an unwillingness to act decisively at the beginning?

Two atomics were dropped in Japan three days apart. One in Hiroshima and the other in Nagasaki.

aero10 wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:40 pm The Japanese didn't have to bomb Pearl Harbor.

For the win.

Gen. LeMay was against the use of the atomic bombs. He wanted to bring over all of the bombers that were no longer in use in Europe and add them to the ones in the Pacific. He would then drop Napalm all over Japan (even more than he had been) and burn them to the ground until they surrendered. Many thought that the atomic bombs caused fewer deaths and less damage than LeMay's plan. War is a bad thing and, as others on this post have stated, they should not have started this. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword".

LTUME1978 wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:20 am Gen. LeMay was against the use of the atomic bombs. He wanted to bring over all of the bombers that were no longer in use in Europe and add them to the ones in the Pacific. He would then drop Napalm all over Japan (even more than he had been) and burn them to the ground until they surrendered. Many thought that the atomic bombs caused fewer deaths and less damage than LeMay's plan. War is a bad thing and, as others on this post have stated, they should not have started this. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword".

Dresden has be similarly criticized as unnecessary. Doing that same thing to Japanese cities was already underway and would have accelerated with more bombers.