[High Max]

^_^

[General Battuta]

All fine points, except...

...invaded...Japan...on foot?

[High Max]

^_^

[StarSlayer]

We are, after all, a country started by terrorists. The ideals, I suppose are admirable.

Speaking of which today in 1781 – At Yorktown, Virginia, representatives of British commander Lord Cornwallis handed over Cornwallis' sword and formally surrendered in person to George Washington and the comte de Rochambeau, ending the American Revolutionary War.

[Snail]

All fine points, except...

...invaded...Japan...on foot?

I'd replace that particular argument with the vicious firebombing campaigns that alone killed as many people as the two nuclear bombs.

In each and every war, atrocities are committed by both sides, but history rarely reflects this.


EDIT - Yes, viscous firebombing campaigns. Frikken spellchecker.

[TESLA]

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/10/06/u-s-now-most-admired-nation-on-the-planet/

The United States is the most admired country globally thanks largely to the star power of President Barack Obama and his administration, according to a new poll.

It climbed from seventh place last year, ahead of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan which completed the top five nations in the Nation Brand Index (NBI).

“What’s really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States for 2009,” said Simon Anholt, the founder of NBI, which measured the global image of 50 countries each year.

He believes that during the previous administration of George W. Bush the United States suffered in the world ranking with its unpopular foreign policies but since Obama was elected, and despite the recent economic turmoil, the country’s status has risen globally.

“There is no other explanation,” Anholt said in an interview, referring to the impact of Obama.

Like Frak it is

[High Max]

^_^

[NGTM-1R]

The firebombing campaigns were, supposedly, targeted at Japanese industry. Everything else was collateral damage, although correspondence between Air Force leaders makes it clear it was in their minds more of "secondary targets". Studying the literature of the time, it's not entirely clear where LeMay and co. derived their authority to undertake this particular tactic (theater commanders and even higher Air Force command were not consulted), or how they believed it would be more effective then, say, aerial mining of Japanese ports.

On the other hand, I doubt you'll meet a single US veteran of the Pacific War who does not believe that the use of the atomic bombs was a wise and proper decision compared to launching Operations Olympic and Coronet.  Anyone who has examined the operational studies conducted in preparation knows that they were not describing it as a "blood-soaked apocalypse" for ****s and giggles. The US expected to absorb nearly as many casualities as the entire European war. The virtual extermination of the Japanese race was foreseen, and that was not an intentional side-effect.

The use of atomic weapons, compared to that, was merciful for all sides.

[General Battuta]

Both the firebombings (in Pacific and Atlantic theaters) and the use of the atomic bombs were atrocities.

They may have prevented larger-scale atrocities, but they were atrocities nonetheless.

[Snail]

Willliam Calley

[iamzack]

I'm still disgusted by something I only learned the day before yesterday: the US actually executed some of the Japanese involved in waterboarding American POWs.

Hypocrisy is the highest form of patriotism.

[Snail]

I'm still disgusted by something I only learned the day before yesterday: the US actually executed some of the Japanese involved in waterboarding American POWs.

Hypocrisy is the highest form of patriotism.

I like reality. It is a world without moral absolutes, in which we are free to choose who is and who isn't evil.

[Scotty]

The firebombing campaigns were, supposedly, targeted at Japanese industry. Everything else was collateral damage, although correspondence between Air Force leaders makes it clear it was in their minds more of "secondary targets". Studying the literature of the time, it's not entirely clear where LeMay and co. derived their authority to undertake this particular tactic (theater commanders and even higher Air Force command were not consulted), or how they believed it would be more effective then, say, aerial mining of Japanese ports.

On the other hand, I doubt you'll meet a single US veteran of the Pacific War who does not believe that the use of the atomic bombs was a wise and proper decision compared to launching Operations Olympic and Coronet.  Anyone who has examined the operational studies conducted in preparation knows that they were not describing it as a "blood-soaked apocalypse" for ****s and giggles. The US expected to absorb nearly as many casualities as the entire European war. The virtual extermination of the Japanese race was foreseen, and that was not an intentional side-effect.

The use of atomic weapons, compared to that, was merciful for all sides.

Interestingly enough, I'm doing my term paper on this subject.  The US expected to soak up about 40,000 dead, not half a million.  The bomb was dropped out of expediency, not purely out of saving US lives.  Postwar relations with Russia were also a major consideration, as a demonstration would go a long way as political capital, especially if that demonstration proved the US had the balls to drop them on cities. 

As to the "single US veteran" point, every single military commander in the Pacific was aghast at the bomb's use.  Leahy, Nimitz, Eisenhower, and MacArthur all publicly denounced the bombings on an already-defeated Japan.

I can and will cite sources if you want to argue over this (for fun, of course).

[NGTM-1R]

Those are wildly at variance with the sources I've seen. Max Hastings, despite his tendancy to editorialize, offers 40,000 dead and several hundred thousand wounded as the expected cost of Operation Coronet, which is just invading Kyushu. The Honshu invasion was expected to be worse.

Also, yes, the top commanders were aghast. They don't have the benefit of hindsight. The firebombings had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender; the total blockade caused by aerial mining once the B-29s were pulled off the firebombing mission had not caused them to surrender. They made overtures because of starvation two months before the end, but then withdrew them, signalling they were willing to continue the fight. They were known to be diehards from a myraid of engagements by now. A completely rational enemy would have surrendered after the Marianas, a merely desperate one after Leyte. Japan might be defeated by any rational standards, but they were now far beyond rational behavior.

And the "single veteran" point was worded more carefully than you think; the people who would have had to do the actual invading, the infantry, tankers, artillery enlisted, NCOs, junior officers? I doubt you can cite a single source where they were against the decision. They also happen to be the only ones you can still meet.

[Stormkeeper]

“There is no other explanation,” Anholt said in an interview, referring to the impact of Obama.

DAS HASSELHOFF! HE IS THE REAL REASON!!!111!

I also got the impression that Japanese society kind of rubbed other people the wrong way

I see what you did thar.

And this is now a debate about US involvment in WWII, including but not limited to, their atomic bombs, firebombing campaign and various other war actions. By the way, no where do I remember the US invading Japan on foot. In fact I seem to recall the nukes were dropped specifically to avoid doing that, and the massive casualties that would result.

[Rian]

Battle of Okinawa.

[Scotty]

Okinawa was technically Japanese soil, with the civilian population that goes with it.

Those are wildly at variance with the sources I've seen. Max Hastings, despite his tendancy to editorialize, offers 40,000 dead and several hundred thousand wounded as the expected cost of Operation Coronet, which is just invading Kyushu. The Honshu invasion was expected to be worse.

The Joint War Plans Committee gave an estimate of 193,500 casualties on June 15, 1945, including 40,000 dead and 150,000 wounded.  The given estimates were for the invasion of Southern Kyushu, followed by the Tokyo plain on Honshu.  Those are the official estimates from the time, total, and hindsight matters nothing for the perceived motivations of the bombings.  MacArthur endorsed those estimates, based on a number of reasons.  One of the most prominent being the high number of potential landing sites.  The Japanese military would be unable to position all of their troops at a guaranteed point of assault, and casualties would be much lower, as a result of that, since a large percentage of casualties occur during the breaching assault.

Also, yes, the top commanders were aghast. They don't have the benefit of hindsight. The firebombings had not convinced the Japanese government to surrender; the total blockade caused by aerial mining once the B-29s were pulled off the firebombing mission had not caused them to surrender. They made overtures because of starvation two months before the end, but then withdrew them, signalling they were willing to continue the fight. They were known to be diehards from a myraid of engagements by now. A completely rational enemy would have surrendered after the Marianas, a merely desperate one after Leyte. Japan might be defeated by any rational standards, but they were now far beyond rational behavior.

I will grant you that they were not acting rationally, but do you know why?  The Japanese military wanted above all else to preserve the institution of the Emperor.  They knew the war was lost, but they hoped that a final, decisively bloody campaign would persuade the US to accept the condition that Emperor be allowed to remain in place during their surrender.  Yes, a small minority of die-hards did attempt to prolong the war after the decision was made, but they lost, and are unimportant.  However, even that small core of fanatics was motivated by a desire to see the Institution of the Emperor survive, mostly because the Allies had called for nothing less than Unconditional Surrender.  In fact, it was almost entirely that small minority that prolonged the war due to its influence in the Japanese government.

I am having trouble finding the reference at the moment, but by the beginning of August, nearly half of the Emperor's advisors advocated accepting the Unconditional Surrender declaration at Potsdam.

And the "single veteran" point was worded more carefully than you think; the people who would have had to do the actual invading, the infantry, tankers, artillery enlisted, NCOs, junior officers? I doubt you can cite a single source where they were against the decision. They also happen to be the only ones you can still meet.

Touche.  However, people like that normally are not the voices of history for the books.  As such, it would seem difficult to confirm or deny that statement on any level for the time being.  Please do not misunderstand that I am against the dropping of the bomb.  I firmly believe it was necessary.  However, it was not necessary for all the reasons people like to think of.

Interesting fun fact for those not currently arguing:  The March 9-10, 1945 firebombing of Tokyo caused more immediate deaths than the Hiroshima explosion, over 83,000.

[Mongoose]

Though it's probably not a popular viewpoint, the way I see it, war is hell, no matter how you try to pretty it up.  That's particularly true when engaged in a total war such as WWII.  You can try to do what you can to mitigate the impact of what you're doing, but in the end, everyone is doing something that sixty years of perspective could potentially label an "atrocity."  As horrific as their effects were, if the firebombings of Tokyo and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki enabled the war to conclude significantly more swiftly than it would have without taking those actions, then from where I'm sitting, they were the right decision.

That being said, regarding the atomic bomb, I share the opinion of most of the physicists who originally worked on the Manhattan Project. Though obtaining such a weapon before Germany was able to do so was crucial, it's something that never should have come into existence in the first place in an ideal world.  We shouldn't possess the ability to destroy ourselves completely.

[Polpolion]

heh...

[Blue Lion]

That HAS to be satire