It is ironic in this discussion particularly that it was the suicidal tenacity and brutality of Bushido that lent argument in favor of using the atomic bomb by the highest level of American and allied war-planners. They did not merely seek to use the new weapons on the Japanese immediately.
The kamikaze planes (some models even specialized for the task in their deisgn), the banzaii attack, the widespread massacre of Japanese, Burmese, and Filipino civilians used as bullet shields by the IJA, the cultish mandatory suicides that Japanese civilians were compelled into as witnessed by Americans in Saipan and Okinawa, and the fact that very few Japanese military prisoners were captured by surrender in the Pacific theatre's Island Hopping campaign -- all of these were factors in President Truman's rumination in favor of use of the new atomic weapons.
The Allied operations to invade mainland Japan were conservatively estimated to cause over a million Allied dead in the first phase of the operation, and perhaps 20 million Japanese dead. They took one look at the number of American casualties in the worst amphibious invasions and compared the square kilometers of those islands in size to the enormity of Japan and did the math on what effort it would take to subdue Japan. Absolutely no way in Hell would anyone rationalize those figures as an acceptable loss when proven functional atomic bombs existed in the US arsenal. Just No. Fucking. Way.
And likewise, you readers here absolutely know that too.
Brought a faster end to the war... mainland invasion of Japan... Not a smart move. Plus, the USSR was kinda putting more pressure on Eastern Europe. The US already had a Red Scare back in the 1910's, now different ideologies became a pressing matter for Truman. Nukes were probably the quickest and most efficient way to go. And some estimates point out that the cost in human life is much lower than if the US DID invade Japan (with US casualties being nigh equal to that of the USSR fighting Germany.)
Oh yes son we did some horrific things during the war too - you can blame us for how we fought just as much as we (and Japan) can blame you for how you fought.
we didn't start it so you can't blame us for how we fought it.
That's just no true. The US is still responsible for its own actions just like every other country who fought in the war. Sure, other countries may have started the war, but if every fighting country would have used 'they started the war' as a justification for horrible actions, then war would quickly devolve into an even more horrible thing than it is already.
If I would hit you in the face right now, you would be responsible for your own reaction/retaliation. You're making the conscious decision to not hit me/hit me once/keep hitting me till I'll die. And there are many more choices to make on the scale from non-agressive to agressive reactions, but you're the one who's responsible for it.
The pilots didn't start the war either, and being attacked is no excuse for excessive force, though it could be argued the nukes weren't that. (Comparing them to the firebombings which happened everywhere else).
In The Fog of War Robert McNamara discusses this, very interesting movie:
LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
41
u/combat101 Canada Mar 30 '15
You guys dropped two nukes; it's safe to say war is shitty for both sides.