Was dropping the Bomb on Japan racist?

[Cypress]

Agreed. The US was weary of war and the US was near broke. However, unlike 4.5 years of war with both the Nazis and Imperial Japan, IF we had a couple nukes and could reasonably convince the Soviets we had even more, a 1945-1946 war would have been very short. Perhaps by the end of 1945 in some alternative timeline. As it was, the US didn't have the bombs yet it did have too many commie sympathizers in government and academia. Ergo, I think everything worked out as best it could have at the time.

War is bad for everyone. Even the conquerors. It's why it should always be a last resort much like using a handgun or AK-47 in self-defense.

Roosevelt, then Truman, knew Stalin was a murderous lying asshole who could not be trusted. They had to balance the Soviet threat against a revolt of their own war-weary citizens.

I am not even sure nuking Moscow would have been possible in 1946. Japan's air defenses were non-existent in 1945. This was the era before ICBMs - getting a B-29 through one thousand miles of heavily defended Soviet air space - and back - seems unrealistic.

Japan had no counterstrike capability in 1945 -
an attempted American first strike nuclear attack on Moscow would have made us a rogue nation in the framework of international law and norms, and world have immediately invited a counterstrike on western Europe by the Red Army, which at that time was the world's largest and most battle tested army.

Summing up, a USA first strike in 1946 would have been foolish , unrealistic, disastrous

 

[T. A. Gardner]

We are not interested in generals who win victories without bloodshed. The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, and not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.

If one side uses force without compuntion, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand.

Clausewitz, On War

We should have, and did bomb the shit out of Japan, and if they didn't surrender, we should have kept on nuking them till they did or there were none left. That is how wars are fought and won.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I am not even sure nuking Moscow would have been possible in 1946. Japan's air defenses were non-existent in 1945. This was the era before ICBMs - getting a B-29 through one thousand miles of heavily defended Soviet air space - and back - seems unrealistic.

Japan had no counterstrike capability in 1945 -
an attempted American first strike nuclear attack on Moscow would have made us a rogue nation in the framework of international law and norms, and world have immediately invited a counterstrike on western Europe by the Red Army, which at that time was the world's largest and most battle tested army.

Summing up, a USA first strike in 1946 would have been foolish , unrealistic, disastrous

In 1946, the Soviet air defense system was not at all prepared for a Western-style strategic bombardment campaign. The Soviets knew it all-too-well and were working feverishly to fix that. During the war they had concentrated on winning against Germany (as they should have), but it left them unprepared for a war against the US and Britain in the air.
The largest in widespread service AA gun was the 85mm. Much like Japan's antiaircraft capacity, it was marginally, very marginally, capable of dealing with an aircraft like the B-29. Virtually all aircraft in service were ones that were best at 4,000 meters or less give or take. High speed, high altitude fighters barely existed in the Soviet inventory. The radar available was a mix of captured German sets of WW 2 vintage, a small number of indigenously produced sets that were equivalent to Western ones circa 1942, and some US lend-lease ones. Sure, the Soviets quickly started to copy the SCR-584 for example, because it was superior to anything else they had available, but that took time.

If the US chose to come at night to nuke Moscow, the Soviet Union was all but defenseless. Radar directed AA batteries in 1946 barely existed at all. There was no comprehensive fighter direction system in place (see the German Poltava raids in late 1944 as one proof of that). The nightfigher capacity of the Red Air Force was next to nil.

Again, the Russians weren't stupid. They knew these problems existed and did their best to conceal them while working as quickly as they could to put systems in place that would make up for that deficit. But that took time and the country being devastated by war certainly didn't help.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Of course it's always the Democrats. And Democrats have always been the same ever since. /s

who ordered the internment? FDR (DEMOCRAT/SOCIALIST) and who approved it? DEMOCRAT CONGRESS. and yes, they've been the same ever since, just better at hiding their two faces

 

[AProudLefty]

who ordered the internment? FDR (DEMOCRAT/SOCIALIST) and who approved it? DEMOCRAT CONGRESS. and yes, they've been the same ever since, just better at hiding their two faces

Like I said, of course.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Like I said, of course.

next time, avoid your little /s sarcasm tag.......hypocrite

 

[AProudLefty]

next time, avoid your little /s sarcasm tag.......hypocrite

Also there was another Democrat who took away felons' 2nd Amendment right.

And that sarcasm tag? People like you always seek to point out Democrats who did things, regardless of anything.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Also there was another Democrat who took away felons' 2nd Amendment right.

And that sarcasm tag? People like you always seek to point out Democrats who did things, regardless of anything.

it absolutely amazes me how almost all of you completely ignore all my criticisms of your opposing party, instead choosing to focus on just my criticisms of YOUR party, thereby delusionally allowing your idiot selves to call me a 'trumper' or 'libtard', or any other bullshit colloquialism that gives you that false sense of superiority and satisfaction, as wrong as it always is

 

[AProudLefty]

it absolutely amazes me how almost all of you completely ignore all my criticisms of your opposing party, instead choosing to focus on just my criticisms of YOUR party, thereby delusionally allowing your idiot selves to call me a 'trumper' or 'libtard', or any other bullshit colloquialism that gives you that false sense of superiority and satisfaction, as wrong as it always is

You must have been confused about me for other posters. Never said you're a "trumper".

 

[christiefan915]

I believe it was barbaric. The Japanese army was defeated. It was not necessary to kill innocent citizens.

I'm with you. I haven't read anything that leads me to believe otherwise. Even Eisenhower said "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

 

[christiefan915]

It debatable whether the war would have drug on, I guess that is the debate that will continue on this issue.

It was bad enough dropping the bomb on Hiroshima but to hit Nagasaki also was reprehensible.

 

[Flash]

War. I'm sorry that we did it and killed so many civilians, but the loss of life from an invasion would have been even worse. I think it is a tribute to humanity, and to organizations like NATO, the UN, etc. that we haven't used a nuclear weapon in 75 years despite the proliferation of the devices.

The proliferation may be the reason nuclear weapons have not been used since Hiroshima. When only one nation has them there is no deterrence to use it since nobody can retaliate. When other countries have them a nuclear attack can result in a counter attack.

That is why deterrence theory says a country must have enough weapons to survive a nuclear attack in order to launch a counter attack and inflict unacceptable losses.

 

[/MSG/]

Daily reminder that general Douglas MacArthur was right and we should have nuked Beijing in the 1950s.

 

[AProudLefty]

The racism that already existed might have influenced the attitude towards them.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The proliferation may be the reason nuclear weapons have not been used since Hiroshima. When only one nation has them there is no deterrence to use it since nobody can retaliate. When other countries have them a nuclear attack can result in a counter attack.

That is why deterrence theory says a country must have enough weapons to survive a nuclear attack in order to launch a counter attack and inflict unacceptable losses.

Or as they used to call it back in our day -- MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[christiefan915]

Show me one reference that the war wouldn't have drug on if we had to invade the home islands. Just one!

How about some quotes from generals?

"The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement 11 days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz...stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”

Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., the commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [The scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” He later publicly declared, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Even the famous hawk Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

 

[AProudLefty]

Or as they used to call it back in our day -- MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction.

Why does that remind me of this?

 

[Cypress]

In 1946, the Soviet air defense system was not at all prepared for a Western-style strategic bombardment campaign. The Soviets knew it all-too-well and were working feverishly to fix that. During the war they had concentrated on winning against Germany (as they should have), but it left them unprepared for a war against the US and Britain in the air.
The largest in widespread service AA gun was the 85mm. Much like Japan's antiaircraft capacity, it was marginally, very marginally, capable of dealing with an aircraft like the B-29. Virtually all aircraft in service were ones that were best at 4,000 meters or less give or take. High speed, high altitude fighters barely existed in the Soviet inventory. The radar available was a mix of captured German sets of WW 2 vintage, a small number of indigenously produced sets that were equivalent to Western ones circa 1942, and some US lend-lease ones. Sure, the Soviets quickly started to copy the SCR-584 for example, because it was superior to anything else they had available, but that took time.

If the US chose to come at night to nuke Moscow, the Soviet Union was all but defenseless. Radar directed AA batteries in 1946 barely existed at all. There was no comprehensive fighter direction system in place (see the German Poltava raids in late 1944 as one proof of that). The nightfigher capacity of the Red Air Force was next to nil.

Again, the Russians weren't stupid. They knew these problems existed and did their best to conceal them while working as quickly as they could to put systems in place that would make up for that deficit. But that took time and the country being devastated by war certainly didn't help.

You should post a link to whomever gets credit for writing the words in your post.

The "experts" also claimed the Soviets would never be able to shoot down a U2.

Desktop experts have routinely been proven wrong on the capability of air defense systems.

I was not thinking of AA air defence. I assumed B29 service ceiling puts it our of range of most AA.

I was thinking about fighter cover. By 1945 to 46 the Soviets had thousands of advanced Yak fighters, which had service ceilings rated at greater than 30,000 feet. We could bomb Tokyo with virtual impunity in 1945. Flying a B29 a thousand miles deep into Russia and getting them back out again sounds challenging at best, unrealistic at worst.

An insane and foolish U.S. first nuclear strike also invites immediate and overwhelming counterstrike by the Red Army in against Americans and Europeans in western Europe.

To fantasize about a nuclear first strike on Russia is just naive and foolish

 

[AProudLefty]

In 1946, the Soviet air defense system was not at all prepared for a Western-style strategic bombardment campaign. The Soviets knew it all-too-well and were working feverishly to fix that. During the war they had concentrated on winning against Germany (as they should have), but it left them unprepared for a war against the US and Britain in the air.
The largest in widespread service AA gun was the 85mm. Much like Japan's antiaircraft capacity, it was marginally, very marginally, capable of dealing with an aircraft like the B-29. Virtually all aircraft in service were ones that were best at 4,000 meters or less give or take. High speed, high altitude fighters barely existed in the Soviet inventory. The radar available was a mix of captured German sets of WW 2 vintage, a small number of indigenously produced sets that were equivalent to Western ones circa 1942, and some US lend-lease ones. Sure, the Soviets quickly started to copy the SCR-584 for example, because it was superior to anything else they had available, but that took time.

If the US chose to come at night to nuke Moscow, the Soviet Union was all but defenseless. Radar directed AA batteries in 1946 barely existed at all. There was no comprehensive fighter direction system in place (see the German Poltava raids in late 1944 as one proof of that). The nightfigher capacity of the Red Air Force was next to nil.

Again, the Russians weren't stupid. They knew these problems existed and did their best to conceal them while working as quickly as they could to put systems in place that would make up for that deficit. But that took time and the country being devastated by war certainly didn't help.

Why does this thread keep reminding me of historical facts?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You should post a link to whomever gets credit for writing the words in your post.

The "experts" also claimed the Soviets would never be able to shoot down a U2.

Desktop experts have routinely been proven wrong on the capability of air defense systems.

I was not thinking of AA air defence. I assumed B29 service ceiling puts it our of range of most AA.

I was thinking about fighter cover. By 1945 to 46 the Soviets had thousands of advanced Yak fighters, which had service ceilings rated at greater than 30,000 feet. We could bomb Tokyo with virtual impunity in 1945. Flying a B29 a thousand miles deep into Russia and getting them back out again sounds challenging at best, unrealistic at worst.

An insane and foolish U.S. first nuclear strike also invites immediate and overwhelming counterstrike by the Red Army in against Americans and Europeans in western Europe.

To fantasize about a nuclear first strike on Russia is just naive and foolish

I have an MA in military history, have published articles on military history, and am currently writing a book on advanced military technology between 1935 and 1955. I recited all that from personal knowledge.

The Soviets shot down a U2 in 1960. In 1946 nobody had a operational surface to air missile in inventory. The US and Soviets were working to build one. The US programs were US Army- Nike missile, US Navy Project Bumblebee that became Talos. There were several studies going on too like the USAAF's Wizard and Thumper. In the Soviet Union they were trying to develop one from the shit German Wasserfall missile of late WW 2. In the end, they dumped that and developed the S-25 Berkut missile (the radar used with it is quite unique and innovative by the way).

If you look deeper into Soviet aircraft in 1946, the typical performance limit is around 15,000 feet. Above that the performance starts to drop off dramatically. Most have a single stage supercharger and were optimized for lower altitude operations. The Yak 3 and 9 are both that way. Even the later Yak 11 doesn't have the stuff to really intercept B-29's. The Lavochikin series is the same way. You can see this from these piston engine fighter's use in Korea. That's a big reason the MiG 15 was brought in.
The Soviet planes are much like the WW 2 US fighters with un-turbocharged Allison engines. These, like the P-39 and 40 also were good to 15,000 feet even as their service ceilings were listed as 25,000+ feet. You have to look at the engine performance curves for these planes to spot that.
But there's another part to successful intercepts and that's having a control system in place that can make it happen. In 1946 the Soviet system was still very rudimentary and lacked the refinements the British, US, or Germans had in their air defense systems. It's not so much a criticism of ability but rather a realistic appreciation of what was possible.

In 1946, this is where the US was at with an air-to-air missile:

It would be 1950 before the Soviets got their first one in testing. Not their fault particularly, because they started from scratch in 1946 -47 were as the US had already been developing theirs since 1944.

The Soviets made up for this lack by retaining a huge ground army in Europe. The threat was that a nuclear attack would bring a ground war that Western Europe and the US couldn't win.

At the time (1946) the most the US could have realistically done is nuke about half a dozen to a dozen cities in the Soviet Union, but even then much of Soviet industry was out of range of a B-29 strike from say, England. The US knew that too and wanted to avoid a war as much as the Soviets did.