Lest we forget - Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if I had been in charge we surely would have lost. But Robert Pape, for example, argues that aerial attack of strictly military targets and the blockade, combined with Soviet entry into the war, would have done the job in the same time .

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you are misquoting him. I can imagine no conventional scenario that would have Japan capitulating on August 15 and surrendering on September 2, 1945. (We won't even go into the problems of greater Soviet expansion than would occur is a longer scenario.) Update: Maybe you are quoting him correctly, but not many people agree with him. Just because he states the case, it doesn't make him right, and sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking. His case seems to be built on the idea that the Soviet entry into the war would cause a surrrender once they saw they couldn't win, but if that's the case, why did the militarists try to continue the war after the decision for surrender AFTER the Soviets had invaded AND Japan had already been hit by two atom bombs. It seems illogical to think that less force would have made them more likely to surrender, when it the amount applied barely made them do so in the first place.

But let's take this a bit further, supposing it did work, but over time. How long? And would those casualties on the civilian Japanese side have been any less? As was mentioned above, Japanese industry was dispursed throughout civilian areas intentionally, so any "strictly military" target would have resulted in some civilian casualties anyway, probably quite a few. Not to mention casualties from the blockade. Plus civilian casualties from Japanese occupied areas, which were pretty horrific. Plus additional military casualties on all sides. How high a body count are you willing to go, just so you don't have to use two atomic weapons?

It's a pretty well known maxim in war, although hotly debated, that the best way to reduce casualties is not the slow and deliberate approach, but rather the hard and fast approach, get it over with as soon as possible. And the minute you value enemy lives more than your own troops, and they know it, that's when they quit or frag you.

FWIW, Pepe's study of strategic airpower benefits from hindsight. He didn't have to live in the moment, making decisions with limited information. I doubt even the most hawkish of military officials would conduct WWII the same way with the same equipment, given what lessons were learned after the war. That's why results should be studied, to learn how to do it better the next time, not to criticize the non-clairvoyance of the participants.

[andyfox]

Pape makes his case in his book Bombing to Win. I'll see if I can find it at home and post some details of his argument tonight.

[iron81]

From when Andy and I debated the cause of the Japanese surrender:

Debate thread
Comment thread

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Pape makes his case in his book Bombing to Win. I'll see if I can find it at home and post some details of his argument tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I tried to pick up some of what his arguments were from reading about the book on the web. I don't think many others have taken up his arguments. Besides which, I believe he also makes the case for actually using nuclear weapons in that book, if I read the reviews correctly.

I know he has another book out on suicide bombing, which is popular among the left, but just on the surface, I think he makes a big mistake in lumping all suicide bombings together and then trying to ascribe a single cause to all of them. I know it's a mistake to argue against a book without reading it, but that doesn't stop us here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

I haven't read his new book either, but, from reviews, I believe his argument is that terrorists engage in terrorism in large part because it works.

I now have Bombing to Win in front of me. Pape argues that "military vulnerability, not civilian vulnerability, accounts for Japan's decision to surrender." He rejects three explanations for Japan's surrender before the planned Ameircan invasion: 1) the fear of future punishment from atomic bombing; 2) the effects of conventional strategic bombing on Japan's population; and 3) a concession by the Untied States to permit retention of the emperor:

"The principal implication of all three of these arguments is that had American air power not driven up the costs and risks to civilians, Japan would not have surrendered prior to invasion of the home islands. Yet, none of these explanations is consistent with the facts. The argument that Japan was coerced by the threat of atomic attack fails because conventional bombing had already achieved such a high level of destruction that atomic bombs could not inflict dramatically more damage; the 'hostage' was already dead. The argument that bombing collapsed Japanese morale is also wrong. Despite being subjected to the most harrowing terror campaign in history, Japan's civilian population did not presure the government to surrender, industrial workers did not abandon their jobs, and army discipline remained excellent. The argument that a reduction of Amreican demands can explain the outcome misreads the facts. The United States never communicated any commitment to retain the emperor or willingness to reduce any other demands."

Pape's conclusion: "The principal cause of Japan's surrender was the ability of the United States to increase the military vulnerability of the home islands sufficiently to persuade Japanese leaders that their defense was highly unlikely to succeed. The key military factor causing this effect was the sea blockade, which crippled Japan's ability to produce and equip the forces necessary to execute its strategy. The most important factor accounting for the timing of surrender was the Soviet attack against Manchuria, largely because it convinced recalcitrant Army leaders that the homeland could not be defended . . . The naval blockade, invasion threat, and Soviet attack ensured that surrender would have occurred at precisely [Pape's emphasis] the same time even if there had been no strategic bombing campaign."

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"They attacked us first"

And this justifies killing hundreds of thousands of children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but it shortened the war. And a bluff wouldn't have worked. And neither would only 1 bomb. And they attacked us first. Feel free to insert your own rationalization for why it was ok to fry thousands of helpless children alive in their hometown.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a TOTAL WAR. Do you know what that means?

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Abe!

[/ QUOTE ]


Ban for antisemitism

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Japanese industry was dispursed throughout civilian areas intentionally,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, intentionally because that's where workers live. Where do you think our industry is disbursed? What a coincidence -- in civilian areas as well! How diabolical of us.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the Vietnamese would have been justified in dropping a bomb on my children because of war crimes committed by American servicemen in their country?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But only if they were collateral damage, and not deliberately targeted. As was the case in Japan - the ground zero of one of the bombs was the Mitsubishi arms factory and the infrastructure that supported it. You know, the building that made bullets to go into Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL?

[Copernicus]

Whats the question mark for The Mitsubishi shipyard and machinery plant was about 2 miles south of ground zero, and represented something like 1/3 of the destroyed portion of Nagasaki. It was an important strategic target to cripple their navy's capabilities.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
As was the case in Japan - the ground zero of one of the bombs was the Mitsubishi arms factory and the infrastructure that supported it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And firms in the WTC helped finance corporations that fund the military-industrial complex. And the Pentagon is well, the Pentagon. There ya go, 9/11 wasn't terrorism. You can hardly go to an American city that isn't somehow connected with supplying our massive military in some fashion -- look around. If one declares war on America for its actions abroad (which is one's "right" just as we certainly declared war on Japan when their aircraft went on a bombing spree). In that case, all our cities with defense contractors become legitimate military targets (and you apparently agree).