General Discussion

wercal

(1,370 posts)

105. Large cities were deliberately targeted for shock effect

Tue Aug 6, 2013, 04:25 PM

Aug 2013

The firebombing of Tokyo killed over 100k people in one night, and the Japanese didn't surrender. We obviously had the ability to kill them in great number, every night...but that didn't scare them.

So, one of the key reasons the A bomb was used was to be a psychological blow....one that would show the Japanese how their nation could be utterly destroyed in a matter of minutes.

Blowing up an abandoned area would not do that. And neither would blowing up a city that had already been bombed. So, a relatively untouched city (Hiroshima) was chosen.

And you may notice - they still didn't surrender. It took a second bomb at Nagasaki to get the point across.

So dropping a bomb in a deserted area would just have been a waste of one bomb, and an unnecessary risk to the air crews.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

154 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Truman refused to use the atomic bomb on Japan, what should he have done instead? [View all] HardTimes99 Aug 2013 OP

Allow them to kill 15+ million more civilians. Allow tens of thousands US soldiers to die. The Link Aug 2013 #1

My father was in the army in Hawaii at that time, preparing for a land invasion. SharonAnn Aug 2013 #57

Arnaud Amalric (died 1225) Tagurrit Aug 2013 #136

Wasn't it estimated that a "conventional land invasion" would cost 500,000 American lives? KansDem Aug 2013 #2

Cuz ... Koios Aug 2013 #5

They knew the Uranium bomb would work. hunter Aug 2013 #60

You're confusing ... Koios Aug 2013 #62

We would have kept bombing Japan until they surrendered. hunter Aug 2013 #111

The Japanese government and its people would not have believed it Hekate Aug 2013 #98

Large cities were deliberately targeted for shock effect wercal Aug 2013 #105

And an estimated 10 million Japanese. lumberjack_jeff Aug 2013 #145

Eliminate the Project ... Koios Aug 2013 #3

Because 'American' lives are worth so much more? nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #24

Yes, at the time ... Koios Aug 2013 #26

In a tota war? Yes. Lives of your troops are worth any greater number of enemy, even civilians. N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2013 #97

How about... Phillyindy Aug 2013 #4

That was discussed. The fear was of the possibility of a well publicized dud aka fizzle stevenleser Aug 2013 #12

Also LordGlenconner Aug 2013 #18

That was a viable alternative Bragi Aug 2013 #154

He should have anticipated all of the unjust wars we'd wage in the future Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #6

We didn't start WWII, but we sure ended it. Eff the haters. My grandfather kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #7

That doesn't make what we did right Marrah_G Aug 2013 #10

Millions? The Link Aug 2013 #13

Sorry 250,000, still to much Marrah_G Aug 2013 #65

I must disagree. My family was enslaved by the Japanese...some killed. The Link Aug 2013 #66

And what the Japanese did was a horrible thing Marrah_G Aug 2013 #69

Again, I disagree. For millions in China, Korea, etc.. The Link Aug 2013 #70

It looks like we will just have to agree to disagree. Marrah_G Aug 2013 #72

Agreed wercal Aug 2013 #106

The estimated deaths from a full invasion was as many as 10 million Japanese. n/t lumberjack_jeff Aug 2013 #146

I have a difference of opinion than you. tumtum Aug 2013 #14

I understand your point, but the death toll was, at the worst, 250k NuclearDem Aug 2013 #34

Sorry 250,000, still to much Marrah_G Aug 2013 #64

Seriously, that war was Hell on Earth. Ask the Chinese what they thought of the Rape of Nanking... Hekate Aug 2013 #107

Hekate I just see this differently then you do Marrah_G Aug 2013 #135

You must be talking of Dresden and Tokyo nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #46

Implicating ethics and morality into conflict is a rather diaphanous baseline LanternWaste Aug 2013 #49

Thank you for all the information Marrah_G Aug 2013 #71

I can't argue with that at all; and I've always had a difficult time rationalizing... LanternWaste Aug 2013 #81

What a magisterial post! Should be required reading, imho. Thank you for taking HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #99

This post should be bookmarked as a good historical source and commentary Hekate Aug 2013 #110

Well Written and Factual Account Tagurrit Aug 2013 #119

Well said. n/t lumberjack_jeff Aug 2013 #147

+1 DCBob Aug 2013 #148

135K in Hiroshima. Less than that in the second bombing. cthulu2016 Aug 2013 #59

Jesus Christ. STILL TOO MUCH!!! n/t Dawgs Aug 2013 #68

See my post #107 for civilian casualties in Asia and the Pacific Hekate Aug 2013 #113

Hiroshima was chosen because of it's strategic military value. tumtum Aug 2013 #114

My father might have been on the same troop transport tumtum Aug 2013 #108

I had a relative on one of islands that was to be used for the firebombing. roamer65 Aug 2013 #131

Fair questions JustAnotherGen Aug 2013 #8

So much ignorance of historical reality Hekate Aug 2013 #115

ITA JustAnotherGen Aug 2013 #124

Yours is a very wise and insightful post, and I thank you for it. Hekate Aug 2013 #130

Thanks JustAnotherGen Aug 2013 #133

What was Japan capable of doing at that point? jberryhill Aug 2013 #9

Rebuild its armed forces? geek tragedy Aug 2013 #15

News much? - Japan Unveils Biggest Warship Since WWII jberryhill Aug 2013 #121

68 years later. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #122

Patience is a virtue jberryhill Aug 2013 #123

Had Germany been forced to wait until 1986 to re-arm itself . . . nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #127

Because their use became immediately controversial after WWII. Much like Chemical weapons after WWI stevenleser Aug 2013 #21

"And why did we not "end" the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts the same way?" Jenoch Aug 2013 #29

Kill, starve and abuse millions of civilians in the lands they had conquered? hack89 Aug 2013 #39

And in what lands were they by August 1945? jberryhill Aug 2013 #52

The Japanese murdered between 3 and 10 million civilians from 1937 to 1945 hack89 Aug 2013 #54

That wasn't the question, now was it? jberryhill Aug 2013 #61

The killing stopped when the war ended hack89 Aug 2013 #63

Not in Korea, Vietnam and other power vacuums jberryhill Aug 2013 #73

So because we can't stop all future killing hack89 Aug 2013 #74

I'm not the one arguing that it came to an "end" jberryhill Aug 2013 #78

The killing by the Japanese came to an end. hack89 Aug 2013 #86

Reason #75789 why I love DU jberryhill Aug 2013 #92

You are the one suggesting that continued Japanese occupation of all those lands hack89 Aug 2013 #93

And you are the one jberryhill Aug 2013 #94

Same reason we didn't cut a deal with the Confederates. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #79

This message was self-deleted by its author ieoeja Aug 2013 #83

Conventional land invasion. Rex Aug 2013 #11

I've read estimates that as many as 1 million American soldiers would have died HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #16

Well the OP says IF Truman refused to use The Bomb. Rex Aug 2013 #20

I'm the OP and I hastily posted rather than consider a more nuanced wording. Maybe I should have HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #38

I might get a lecture over my next statement and could be wrong Rex Aug 2013 #45

Good points. They were not ever going to surrender, and Truman knew it. Hekate Aug 2013 #116

I'm glad we agree on something. Rex Aug 2013 #139

Ask the Japanese nicely to "just stop it already." LordGlenconner Aug 2013 #17

Interesting responses given that many responding Gman Aug 2013 #19

3) Demonstrate the power of the weapon without killing thousands. Orsino Aug 2013 #22

Flattening an island Jenoch Aug 2013 #30

Yes. It argues against the idea of flattening things as a panacea. n/t Orsino Aug 2013 #144

I totally understand your position and point. I don't know enough of the history of the HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #32

I'm sure it was considered, but the Japanese would not have believed it Hekate Aug 2013 #118

We didn't understand it, but half of the Japanese government was looking for a face saving way to stevenleser Aug 2013 #23

Thanks for the links. Will try to get to them later today. Half of the Japanese HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #36

Times that try mens souls alan_phillips Aug 2013 #25

What would you rather happen? sgsmith Aug 2013 #27

I think you are correct and your argument is one that opponents of the use of HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #33

Options- sarisataka Aug 2013 #28

I agree with your analysis. It's why I say that Truman chose the 'least-bad' alternative among HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #41

It is easy to second guess with years of history to look back on sarisataka Aug 2013 #50

The Second Bomb Was Totally Unnecessary: Translation Error Caused It vinny9698 Aug 2013 #31

Written a VERY strongly worded letter! zappaman Aug 2013 #35

Bad bad bad!!! Rex Aug 2013 #47

I'm no fan of having to have dropped them NuclearDem Aug 2013 #37

I'm with you, ND, for the most part. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #42

3. Blaspherian Aug 2013 #40

Wow! Your flippancy around such a somber anniversary is HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #43

Wow, really don't know what to say to that. NuclearDem Aug 2013 #48

Less casualties Blaspherian Aug 2013 #80

Explained to them very calmly using "I statements" distantearlywarning Aug 2013 #44

3. He would have kept his powder dry. madinmaryland Aug 2013 #51

What would the American people have done to Truman if he hadn't used the bomb, and..... LongTomH Aug 2013 #53

I find myself also tearing up, although I was born long after the events HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #102

Battle of Okinawa, April 1 to June 22, 1945 BlueCheese Aug 2013 #55

This should be considered Exhibit A for this thread. Hekate Aug 2013 #126

Read Tears in Darkness before answering elfin Aug 2013 #56

This is all anyone needs to know Catherina Aug 2013 #58

The Russians forced his hand by declaring war on Japan Aug 8th KurtNYC Aug 2013 #67

Russia was obligated to declare war against Japan sgsmith Aug 2013 #77

The Russian did not have any ability to invade Japan. GreenStormCloud Aug 2013 #109

Promised the safety of the Emperor and his family, promised an honorable surrender, and a peaceful msanthrope Aug 2013 #75

Neither. Blockade them until the Russians invaded or a revolution took down the militarists. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2013 #76

I get where you're coming from and there's a part of me that wants to agree. But (and HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #87

Why is a slow death due to starvation and disease more humane than an atomic bomb? hack89 Aug 2013 #91

If there's any good that came out of this, it's that no one dared ever do it again. leveymg Aug 2013 #82

I think I remember reading Ellsberg speculating that one reason why Vietnam HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #89

Views of Navy Admirals Leahy, Nimitz & Halsey, AF commanding Gen. Hap Arnold, Gen. LeMay.... Faryn Balyncd Aug 2013 #84

What other wars should have been ended with nukes, then? DirkGently Aug 2013 #85

This is an eloquent statement of the counter-argument to my OP and I thank HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #88

I wonder if anyone here would prefer we had dropped them on Hitler's bunker, which was the intention leveymg Aug 2013 #90

"Perhaps it would have required time" = a lot of pointless deaths hack89 Aug 2013 #95

Reading all the responses to my OP, I'm reminded of something Robert E. Lee allegedly HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #96

Hmm. I remember that as being said while he was watching the Confederates march Benton D Struckcheon Aug 2013 #120

Purple Heart Medals used today were made in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese Mainland egold2604 Aug 2013 #100

HOW ABOUT ACCEPTING THEIR TERMS OF SURRENDER? Th1onein Aug 2013 #101

Then why did they reject the Potsdam Declaration? N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2013 #112

The Potsdam Declaration DCBob Aug 2013 #150

Imagine if they had not been ready in time or had not worked jberryhill Aug 2013 #103

I had an Uncle who was captured in the avebury Aug 2013 #104

War is terrible for everyone on both sides (except the mercenaries and war HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #129

His biggest guilt was watching his best friend die in avebury Aug 2013 #137

That is so sad. On one hand, just one more tragedy among many millions HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #141

Another hard incident occurred when the avebury Aug 2013 #149

Listened to LWolf Aug 2013 #117

He would have been impeached and removed from office. roamer65 Aug 2013 #125

Invasion was the only other alternative. nt Deep13 Aug 2013 #128

I think a naval and aerial blockade was another option, although the costs of HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #132

both optilns Niceguy1 Aug 2013 #134

We should have tried to negotiate a settlement whereby Japan gave up its conquered territories. Vattel Aug 2013 #138

I'm not enough of an expert in the time or the Japanese imperial mindset. Either in this HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #140

this? PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #142

He should have given the Japanese more time to respond to the 1st one, before he used the second JPZenger Aug 2013 #143

I read in one of the threads here that the Japanese asked for more time time HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #151

Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance hack89 Aug 2013 #153

the war was virtually over at that time larkrake Aug 2013 #152