The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to drop the bomb, so.....no, that's not what's being said. It was all about saving lives, US military and civilian at that point. The numbers of casualties would have been staggering. It was too costly to allow the war to continue.

 

If MacArthur was so appalled with the decision in WWII, why would he want to drop between thirty and fifty atomic bombs during the Korean War? Makes no sense to me.

 

Neither Eisenhower nor MacArthur felt that the continuation of the war was a forgone conclusion. MacArthur felt as though allowing the Japanese to keep their emperor would have ended the war very soon. In the end, after the bombs were dropped, though we had been adament about the emperor stepping down before, we allowed them to keep the emperor.

 

In short, these two thought the war was at an end without the use of nuclear weapons.

 

MacArthur was not against the use of nuclear weapons. He just felt that they weren't needed here.

 

I guess that the military leaders can be wrong about what is best for the war at hand.

Neither Eisenhower nor MacArthur felt that the continuation of the war was a forgone conclusion. MacArthur felt as though allowing the Japanese to keep their emperor would have ended the war very soon. In the end, after the bombs were dropped, though we had been adament about the emperor stepping down before, we allowed them to keep the emperor.

 

In short, these two thought the war was at an end without the use of nuclear weapons.

 

MacArthur was not against the use of nuclear weapons. He just felt that they weren't needed here.

 

I guess that the military leaders can be wrong about what is best for the war at hand.

I somehow feel you're trying to tie this into the current situation in Afghanistan. If so, Obama is no Truman, not even close. For one, Truman understood war, having served as an artillery officer in WWI. Obama has no clue.

I somehow feel you're trying to tie this into the current situation in Afghanistan. If so, Obama is no Truman, not even close. For one, Truman understood war, having served as an artillery officer in WWI. Obama has no clue.

 

I agree.

 

But it's not like the last Bush did either if the truth be known. His little stint in the Guard did little to prepare him for the missteps of Iraq. (IMO)

 

FWIW, I think the first bomb was warranted in stopping the war. But only 3 days elapsed from Hiroshima to Nagasaki. The country was in shock and horror from the first bomb and struggling with the aftermath. I think the 2nd bomb was overkill and that was where the US flexed it muscle for all to see. The US waited six more days before the Japanese surrendered. Why not drop a third after 3 days again?

 

I think time would have allowed the "doves" of the Japanese leadership to make their case as more assessment of the bomb damage from Hiroshima was made.

I somehow feel you're trying to tie this into the current situation in Afghanistan. If so, Obama is no Truman, not even close. For one, Truman understood war, having served as an artillery officer in WWI. Obama has no clue.

 

Actually, I'm more interested in pointing out that many military leaders of the time felt that dropping of the bombs was unnecessary - that Japan was ready to surrender, just wanting a way to save face and that by letting them have their emperor, instead of demanding unconditional surrender, would have allowed that. In the end, we did allow them to keep the emperor.

Actually, I'm more interested in pointing out that many military leaders of the time felt that dropping of the bombs was unnecessary - that Japan was ready to surrender, just wanting a way to save face and that by letting them have their emperor, instead of demanding unconditional surrender, would have allowed that. In the end, we did allow them to keep the emperor.

 

If I recall, they kept hte emperor but not before he renounced his deity (traditional interpretation) and authority.

If I recall, they kept hte emperor but not before he renounced his deity (traditional interpretation) and authority.

 

Yes. However, that was not part of unconditional surrender terms.

I agree.

 

But it's not like the last Bush did either if the truth be known. His little stint in the Guard did little to prepare him for the missteps of Iraq. (IMO)

 

FWIW, I think the first bomb was warranted in stopping the war. But only 3 days elapsed from Hiroshima to Nagasaki. The country was in shock and horror from the first bomb and struggling with the aftermath. I think the 2nd bomb was overkill and that was where the US flexed it muscle for all to see. The US waited six more days before the Japanese surrendered. Why not drop a third after 3 days again?

 

I think time would have allowed the "doves" of the Japanese leadership to make their case as more assessment of the bomb damage from Hiroshima was made.

 

 

Did Bush rely on the word/strategy of his generals in Iraq?

Shouldn't we agree with the American generals about the use of the atomic bombs?

 

It wasn't their decision.

 

FWIW, I think the first bomb was warranted in stopping the war. But only 3 days elapsed from Hiroshima to Nagasaki. The country was in shock and horror from the first bomb and struggling with the aftermath. I think the 2nd bomb was overkill and that was where the US flexed it muscle for all to see. The US waited six more days before the Japanese surrendered. Why not drop a third after 3 days again?

 

They didn't drop a third bomb 3 days later because they didn't have a third bomb to drop. The third bomb wouldn't have been ready for at least three or four more weeks. Also, it wasn't a given that once the third bomb was ready that the US would have dropped it immediately. There was an internal debate within the Army on the best use of additional bombs. Some generals wanted to continue to drop them on industrial population centers like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Others wanted to drop them on Japanese defensive positions when the US invaded in November.

 

The dropping of the second bomb was a calculated bluff. It took weeks to produce the material necessary for each atomic bomb. However, the US wanted to give the illusion that they had the capability to drop them in relatively rapid succession. The US feared that if they only dropped one bomb the Japanese might conclude that the US did not have the ability to repeat Hiroshima. The US fears proved well founded when between the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and the bomb on Nagasaki, the Japanese Imperial commanders argued that exact point to the Emperor, that Hiroshima was an anomaly and the US would not be able to repeat it anytime soon. Dropping the second bomb proved otherwise.

 

 

Quite the embarrassment. How can you not, tactfully, explain that yes, it was the right thing as it likely saved millions? :idunno:

 

 

Link

 

B/c he's in the country where the two bombs killed 300,000 people. You would just profess your pride by saying that those bombs may have saved millions of American lives. Also, that million number is quite overblown.

Do you honestly think that is why we dropped it?

 

I don't believe that he did it to save millions of lives, like has been professed.

Does it have to benefit anyone to tell the truth? It's a history, it happened and for a reason. They asked the question, obviously they wanted an answer.

 

History is written by the victors. It's amazing what other countries' history books say.

B/c he's in the country where the two bombs killed 300,000 people. You would just profess your pride by saying that those bombs may have saved millions of American lives. Also, that million number is quite overblown.

No, it's not overblown and it isn't just American lives.

History is written by the victors. It's amazing what other countries' history books say.

It's also amazing how free we are compared to many of those other countries.

From my understanding, Obama shares the belief that a whale and dolphin are responsible for the bombings.