Re: Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb

Jim Garner wrote:
I know this is not a new topic in this group. But I'm bringing it up
again beecause . . . well, you'll see:


The usual argument for having used the Bomb is that it saved thousands, possibly millions, of lives. Without it, goes the argument, it
would have been necessary to invade Japan and millions of soldiers and
civilians would have become casualties.

But did Truman and his advisers really think through the alternative?

Japan at the time was clearly beaten, even if the army didn't know it. Japanese aircraft and ships were virtually inoperative and would have been
total so within weeks. There was nothing to prevent the US and its
allies sailing round the islands and completely isolating them.

It might have taken some weeks longer, but the inevitable result was that
the Japanese would have had to give up.

It was, of course, cheaper and easier to use the A-Bomb. But did Truman
really think of the consequences? The fact that for the rest of the
century (indeed the rest of eternity) his country would be branded as the
first to use this weapon. Even today, the US is suffering the
consequences of this, because Al Quaeda is using Truman's action to
legitimized its campaign of terror. (Oh sure, they'd find some other
rationalization anyway.)

In his memoirs, Churchill says there was no real thought given to the
alternative of NOT using the bomb. Should there have been?

What's the Monday morning quarterback version?

I recommend highly the book, "The Battle of Okinawa, The Blood and the Bomb", by George Feifer. It is a re-issue of his earlier book, "Tennozan", with some revisions. The end of the book analyzes your question, with a great deal of facts about the Japanese activities in China and other captured territories that they still controlled, and prisoners held by the Japanese. And he makes a convincing argu,ment that the militarists who controlled Japan didn't really care how many Japanese civilians died from starvation and battle.

Like others who took part in the Okinawa battle, I am convinced that the bomb saved many Japanese and American lives. A third of the Okinawans were killed in the battle. Feifer's discussion goes beyond those populations, making the numbers of people saved by the A-bombs much larger.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Remember enormous D-Day sacrifice
    ... Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese ... perished in the battle. ... The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. ... Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Downwind from Alamogordo
    ... The Japanese navy had ceased ... No invasion would have been necessary. ... was expected to be much larger than okinawa ... More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Beach battles
    ... > Division and the 44th Independent Mixed Brigade from Manchuria to Okinawa ... > American sub, USS Sturgeon, and about 5600 Japanese troops died. ... > the count of Japanese casualties in the Okinawa battle. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: (OT) Re: Camps (was Re: OK. I am impressed.)
    ... I was asked by the editors to describe the battle for Okinawa. ... island and its people (who are not ethnic Japanese) were edited out. ... Japan uses the expression "war broke out" on the Chinese mainland, ...
    (rec.humor.jewish)
  • Re: History Memochat Pole: Eisenhower or Truman?
    ... Bomb), when Roosevelt died. ... As to using it on the fanitical Japanese in World War II? ... Iwo has been revisited ad nauseum, while the Okinawa Invasion, from Day One, was whitewashed due to the horrendous loss of life. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)