Beer:30

You can argue all you want. The killing of hundreds of thousands by dropping the atomic bombs saved millions of lives, mostly Japanese. By this point of the war, American soldiers had become quite efficient and calloused to killing. They would not have hesitated to kill and destroy whatever they had to to save the man next to them.
Strange that the opponents of dropping the bombs only mention the cruelty of the decision and omit the mindset of the Japanese war mongers who were prepared to allow the death of millions.

Ftrooppilot

What is morally incomprehensible can quickly become ethically convenient. During the Cuban Crisis I flew three 24r hour "Chrome Dome" B-52 missions. We carried four nuclear weapons and maintained an orbit close to the USSR. If ordered to attack I had no moral compunctions about doing so. I knew that my family back on a stateside USAF Strategic Air Command base had twenty minutes to live if the USSR launched an ICBM.

USMCFLYR

WW - What are YOUR feelings towards the subject?

Winged Wheeler

I am sure there is a thread like this every August. I think most opinions on this subject are pretty well set--nothing written here is going to change any minds.

I posted the editorial because I thought it was interesting that, in the early post-war era, some leading American conservatives expressed reservations about the use of the atomic bombs in the war. That is very different than the sentiments of conservatives today. What changed? Was this data cherry picked and did most conservatives support the bombings? I didn't know and wondered if someone here did.

As to my opinions of the bombings:

--There is nothing qualitatively different about being killed by a conventional weapon vs a nuclear/atomic weapon.

--Bombing population centers like Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima is of very limited military value.

--Thus, using the A-bombs on a more strictly military target would have been the way I would have gone.

ymmv

WW

USMCFLYR

Winged Wheeler:
As to my opinions of the bombings:

--There is nothing qualitatively different about being killed by a conventional weapon vs a nuclear/atomic weapon.
I'd agree, though obviously the use of WMDs has seen been made into its own category. Being killed by NBC agents has certainly taken on a different viewpoint.

--Bombing population centers like Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima is of very limited military value.
I wish had the time (or inclination) to dredge up all ofmy books from Command and Staff, but there are certainly aspects of these types of bombings that were viewed as legtimate t argets for strategic purposes (on both sides of the war front) during WWII.
Here are some easier to find references:

Quote:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

"Like most strategic bombing during World War II, the aim of the USAAF offensive against Japan was to destroy the enemy's war industries, kill or disable civilian employees of these industries, and undermine civilian morale. Civilians who took part in the war effort through such activities as building fortifications and manufacturing munitions and other war materials in factories and workshops were considered combatants in a legal sense and therefore liable to be attacked.[38][39]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare)
"Methods of demoralization include hit-and-run attacks such as snipers, commerce raiding, strategic bombing,...."

--Thus, using the A-bombs on a more strictly military target would have been the way I would have gone.

Quote:

Again from Wiki - but was written about in many of my military texts also:
"The Target Committee nominated five targets: Kokura, the site of one of Japan's largest munitions plants;Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters"

"Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field MarshalShunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[102] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.[103] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[104] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-and-8-centimeter (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, over 40,000 military personnel were stationed in the city.[105]
Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military, but it also had large stockpiles of military supplies.[106] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping and an assembly area for troops"

Nagasaki:
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry."

Agreed. YMMV - but those constitute military targets in my book. Maybe you underestimate the importance of industrial capabilities in war time?

Hobbit64

I always wonder if the people who decry the use of the atomic weapons were part of the invasion forces being assembled on Tinian.

War sucks. Always has,always will. I will always place our military's interests over any adversary.

My response: "Don't start nuthin, and there won't be nuthin."

Sum Ting Wong

I don't care how many Japanese died to end the war. Our concern was for Allied deaths, not Japanese deaths.

I hope that the USA, when faced with a similarly implacable enemy in a hot war, will take the same steps as we did in WWII to bring the war to an end.

youth

I hope this will never be necessary never ever.

XHooker

I couldn't agree more.Mostly Japanese civilians. Two very good points. Nobody's hands were clean, war does that, but let's place the lion's share of the blame on the people who had the power to end the bloodshed... the Japanese leadership.

Sum Ting Wong

The author makes the mistake of the Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

Cherry-picking the post-war opinions of a few people proves... nothing. It in no way counters the overwhelming historical evidence that it took the bomb to shock Japan into surrender and that short of that the only choices were invasion or blockade/bombardment/famine, either of which would have killed MILLIONS.