Why did Japan Surrender?

[TeyshaBlue]

I also don't think there was any danger or irresponsibility in its use. US scientists were pretty damn sure there wasn't going to be "mutant zombie" outbreak. WTF?

I've read, fairly extensively, on the subject of the US nuclear program. The US scientists, by large, were pretty damn uncertain what the was going to happen other than a big ass explosion.

Two of the best books I've read on the subject: Day of Trinity http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=ASRDAAAAIAAJ

It's a great read with a few technical issues that are very minor.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
read: http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=aSgFMMNQ6G4C


Both are very well written and move briskly.

[CosmicCowboy]

Personally, I am glad they used the bomb as I probably wouldn't be here if they hadn't. Japan was damn well determined to defend against the invasion of the mainland to the last man...( just look at the carnage on the pacific islands leading up to the invasion for an example) They were anticipating over a million deaths on an invasion. My dad was a Corsair pilot flying missions over Japan from Okinawa at the end and they were getting the shot out of them from ground fire. They were patching boocoo bullet/shrapnel holes after every mission. Dad always said he was sure he would have eventually been killed if they hadn't used the bomb and he had to go through with the invasion.

[Latarian Milton]

I think that the US use of the bomb is effectively terrorism but all bets are off - IMO - when you bomb a country by surprise and start a war. I don't really have a problem with the bomb's use although I do think its possible the war could have been ended without its use or without an invasion. I do think that its use may have had a part in the act that the US and USSR never blew the world to .

I also don't think there was any danger or irresponsibility in its use. US scientists were pretty damn sure there wasn't going to be "mutant zombie" outbreak. WTF?

US ain't the right nation for them yellows to with and if they ever dare to do it, we gonna make them pay. Japs should've never raided the pearl harbor in the first place. US never wanted to do them s such a favor by declaring war against japs, but between helping the s and becoming gutless pussies ourselves, we chose the former one.

US never wanted them innocent japs killed in the big bangs, that sounds cruel but still nothing comparable to the crimes committed by japanese soldiers who killed people for fun tbh. yall s would've been born japanese if the US never joined the war, and that's maybe what you guys would prefer over being born as s but you're ing fooling yourselves if you believe the fascists would treat you all equally as those who wear towels as pants tbh

[EVAY]

There seems to be a confusion of issues here:

1) Did the nuclear bombs singularly cause the surrender of Japan?

Possibly not, but it has to have been a consideration. The timing of the surrender after the Russian War announcement does not definitively indicate that as the causal predicate either.

There was a massive internal argument going on in the Japanese power structure regarding the wisdom of surrender. That discussion was ongoing
after the nuclear bombs were dropped, and the timing of that discussion being finished by the Emperor's fiat does not necessarily imply that the Russian War announcement was the determinant factor.

2) Should the U.S. have used the bomb?

Almost certainly, imo. Both the Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns were so much more brutal than anything the U.S. military hierarchy had imagined in terms of casualties that failure to use whatever means necessary to mitigate the loss of American lives (which was, after all, the responsibility of the American hierarchy) was a moral imperative.

The mitigation of Japanese casualties was the responsiblity of Japan's hierarchy, and was ultimately the basis for the decision to surrender.

[EVAY]

I've read, fairly extensively, on the subject of the US nuclear program. The US scientists, by large, were pretty damn uncertain what the was going to happen other than a big ass explosion.

Two of the best books I've read on the subject: Day of Trinity http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=ASRDAAAAIAAJ

It's a great read with a few technical issues that are very minor.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
read: http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=aSgFMMNQ6G4C




Both are very well written and move briskly.

Agreed. I also read Day of Trinity.

I think it is a mistake to view the decision to use the bomb as if people knew then what we know now about the effects. As you indicated, TB, at least some of the scientists were afraid that we might set the entire atmosphere of the Earth ablaze and kill off the entire planet! Sort of like the fears that surfaced regarding the super-conductor in Switzerland...sometimes people just aren't sure.

But when the decision comes down to saving American and Japanese lives by obviating the need for an invasion, I think that latter-day assumptions are certainly no better than the at-the-time assumptions.

[boutons_deux]

"saving American and Japanese"

having fire-bombed dozens of civilians, aka non-combattant, centers in Japan (and Germany) before the nukes, the Americans were clearly not concerned about saving Japanese lives.

[EVAY]

"saving American and Japanese"

having fire-bombed dozens of civilians, aka non-combattant, centers in Japan (and Germany) before the nukes, the Americans were clearly not concerned about saving Japanese lives.

I'm not saying they were...not even sure it was their job to save Japanese lives (see comments above), but the fact that more Japanese would have died in the case of an invasion than died as a result of the two nuclear bombs is arguably true.

Nothing is certain, but the Japanese civilian behavior on Okinawa and the preparations by the Japanese for home-guard type defenses in the case of invasion, certainly makes a decent argument for the case that more Japanese lives would have been lost in an invasion.

[CosmicCowboy]

"saving American and Japanese"

having fire-bombed dozens of civilians, aka non-combattant, centers in Japan (and Germany) before the nukes, the Americans were clearly not concerned about saving Japanese lives.

We fire bombed white people too.

[diego]

I'm not saying they were...not even sure it was their job to save Japanese lives (see comments above), but the fact that more Japanese would have died in the case of an invasion than died as a result of the two nuclear bombs is arguably true.

Nothing is certain, but the Japanese civilian behavior on Okinawa and the preparations by the Japanese for home-guard type defenses in the case of invasion, certainly makes a decent argument for the case that more Japanese lives would have been lost in an invasion.

Japan back then, even civilian Japan, you can make a pretty good argument that they deserved to be flattened. The Japanese military is one of the worst in terms of war crimes, ever.

But really, my point is more about the lingering effects of a nuke. A decade later babies were still paying for a conflict they had absolutely nothing to do with, IMO that makes it much different than say Dresden or what any of the allied cities casualties.

And of course I was being silly talking mutant zombies, but there was definitely uncertainty about the fallout. I think high al ude fire bombing would have been even more devastating to the japs in terms of damage and casualties, though it wouldnt have had the same effect on everyone else going forward.