Protests as US ship docks in Nagasaki

[Jagos]

I have to say, as a guy that was over in Japan for at least 7 years, this is a load of BS.

Japan's military is basically the US military which is helping them by protecting them from the long range missiles of N. Korea. They have no military (Self Defense force, which doesn't have anywhere NEAR the spy planes of the US) and quite frankly, they would protest anything.

To sit here and put it in perspective, near bases within Japan the closer you are to a base which has military planes, the more you get paid. That's to appease for the noise pollution of said planes. And yet, people STILL b---h about the fact that they have to listen to the noise. Ok, if you don't want the money, move. What is complaining about military personnel, when they're major sources of income for the poorer parts of Japan (anything not Tokyo or Osaka) and the visits have happened more than once?

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by Kepor

Concerning the necessity argument, Japan had already wanted to negotiate a surrender before the bombings. Personally I believe that the bombings were mainly a political thing, with the intent to indirectly warn the Soviet Union, and that an invasion of Japan would not have even been necessary. Of course, the Soviet Union was gearing up to invade Japan, so time wasn't really a luxury we had.

Concerning the topic, I agree with pursuing nuclear reduction with the ultimate goal of disarmament. Instead of MAD, a better goal would be advancement of anti-ballistic missile defense.

Actually having been a history major, there is pretty much no way that Japan was going to surrender. Because without the emperor stepping in it would have taken a unanimous vote from the Supreme War Council. They openly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and the military was even preparing to make a move to take over to assure there was no surrender after Russia declared war. Infact there was one coup attempt that the united states unknowingly aborted through a firebombing run. It took the two bombs to get Hirohito to intervene, and without his intervention, there would have never been surrender.

The use of the nuclear bomb was chosen because of the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima, Tinian, Okinawa, the Philippines , etc... according to most of the writings that are public from that time, including president Truman's, the idea was that a psychological weapon like the bomb was the only way to get the Japanese to capitulate, without severe loss of both allied and Japanese life. The Japanese had even extended their ages of conscription after the capture of Okinawa, in preparation for a mainland invasion. I won't argue that the Russian invasion of Manchuria wasnt a deciding factor in the timeline, though.

EDIT: as for your belief that an invasion would have been unnecessary, three of the six members of the Supreme War Council were refusing to surrender even after the second bomb drop, and were basically forced to accept it from the emperor. Anami, Umezu and Toyada all felt that the only way they could surrender was "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]" (that means the mainland invasion). Anami was actually most likely involved in the military coup attempt to stop surrender AFTER the second bomb was dropped. Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

[01d55]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Actually having been a history major, there is pretty much no way that Japan was going to surrender. Because without the emperor stepping in it would have taken a unanimous vote from the Supreme War Council. They openly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and the military was even preparing to make a move to take over to assure there was no surrender after Russia declared war. Infact there was one coup attempt that the united states unknowingly aborted through a firebombing run. It took the two bombs to get Hirohito to intervene, and without his intervention, there would have never been surrender.

The use of the nuclear bomb was chosen because of the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima, Tinian, Okinawa, the Philippines , etc... according to most of the writings that are public from that time, including president Truman's, the idea was that a psychological weapon like the bomb was the only way to get the Japanese to capitulate, without severe loss of both allied and Japanese life. The Japanese had even extended their ages of conscription after the capture of Okinawa, in preparation for a mainland invasion. I won't argue that the Russian invasion of Manchuria wasnt a deciding factor in the timeline, though.

EDIT: as for your belief that an invasion would have been unnecessary, three of the six members of the Supreme War Council were refusing to surrender even after the second bomb drop, and were basically forced to accept it from the emperor. Anami, Umezu and Toyada all felt that the only way they could surrender was "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]" (that means the mainland invasion). Anami was actually most likely involved in the military coup attempt to stop surrender AFTER the second bomb was dropped. Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

If by "surrender" you mean, "unconditional surrender" then yes. Conditional surrender, on the other hand, was very much on the table - Japan was desperate to negotiate. Given that by this point the Axis were defeated in Europe, refusal on the part of the US to consider negotiating terms could only be justified by three things: Firstly, a desire to keep our word to Russia, which, given the fact that the administration was already assuming postwar relations with Russia would be hostile, is an implausible explanation; secondly, out of concern that public opinion would react negatively to conditional surrender, which given the terrible death caused by any means of inducing unconditional surrender is plausible but morally unjustifiable; third, a desire to demonstrate the bomb in order to intimidate Russia, the most contemptible and most likely explanation for the decision to bomb rather than negotiate.

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Actually having been a history major, there is pretty much no way that Japan was going to surrender. Because without the emperor stepping in it would have taken a unanimous vote from the Supreme War Council. They openly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and the military was even preparing to make a move to take over to assure there was no surrender after Russia declared war. Infact there was one coup attempt that the united states unknowingly aborted through a firebombing run. It took the two bombs to get Hirohito to intervene, and without his intervention, there would have never been surrender.

The use of the nuclear bomb was chosen because of the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima, Tinian, Okinawa, the Philippines , etc... according to most of the writings that are public from that time, including president Truman's, the idea was that a psychological weapon like the bomb was the only way to get the Japanese to capitulate, without severe loss of both allied and Japanese life. The Japanese had even extended their ages of conscription after the capture of Okinawa, in preparation for a mainland invasion. I won't argue that the Russian invasion of Manchuria wasnt a deciding factor in the timeline, though.

EDIT: as for your belief that an invasion would have been unnecessary, three of the six members of the Supreme War Council were refusing to surrender even after the second bomb drop, and were basically forced to accept it from the emperor. Anami, Umezu and Toyada all felt that the only way they could surrender was "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]" (that means the mainland invasion). Anami was actually most likely involved in the military coup attempt to stop surrender AFTER the second bomb was dropped. Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

That's actually in the works currently. I'd need to dig it up again, but Yahoo News had an article on basically a flying multi-directional machine gun mine designed to get close to a missile and turn it into Swiss cheese. I'm pretty sure we've also been looking into shooting missiles down with other missiles, but I'd actually have to look for a solid source on that.

We have several anti-ballistic missile systems, all with uncertain records. The Patriot system is the only one I know off the top of my head, which was deployed to intercept Scud missiles, I believe. It had one absolutely confirmed kill, and a lot of maybes. I haven't heard of that machine-gun thing, but that research is ongoing is promising.

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by Kepor

I stand corrected.

Actually I should have not said "No way they would surrender. Japan had always planned on ending the war with the U.S., just they wanted to do it on their terms only, not ours, our terms were unacceptable to them."

[Kepor]

I didn't know the aspects of the Japanese position; my classes focused mainly on the scientists building the bomb and the decision to drop it, so I know the American position and reasoning behind the decision, but not the Japanese government during the same time. So yeah.

That said, I still think dropping the bomb was unnecessary, but I can still see the motivation behind the decision.

Although I can't really see the motivation behind the protests. I mean, the Blue Ridge is a command ship, it's not like it's a missile sub, which would justify the outrage. Although I doubt a sub would dock openly, but hey.

[Jagos]

I believe the emperor wanted to surrender. It was the military that wanted to continue fighting.

Lookup the Kyuju Incident for more details.

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by Jagos

I believe the emperor wanted to surrender. It was the military that wanted to continue fighting.

Lookup the Kyuju Incident for more details.

yeah I was talking about that when i mentioned the coup attempt that Anami was probably a part of.

The Emperor and his staff were looking for Russia to negotiate a peace settlement between Japan and the U.S. as early as 1945, but were told by the Russians that they would probably get nothing better than unconditional surrender from the the U.S. and even the emperor and his staff felt that unconditional surrender was totally unacceptable.

From Japan's ambassador to russia in July of 1945:

"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by 01d55

If by "surrender" you mean, "unconditional surrender" then yes. Conditional surrender, on the other hand, was very much on the table - Japan was desperate to negotiate. Given that by this point the Axis were defeated in Europe, refusal on the part of the US to consider negotiating terms could only be justified by three things: Firstly, a desire to keep our word to Russia, which, given the fact that the administration was already assuming postwar relations with Russia would be hostile, is an implausible explanation; secondly, out of concern that public opinion would react negatively to conditional surrender, which given the terrible death caused by any means of inducing unconditional surrender is plausible but morally unjustifiable; third, a desire to demonstrate the bomb in order to intimidate Russia, the most contemptible and most likely explanation for the decision to bomb rather than negotiate.

and...

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

EDIT: Also the facts in that blog arent right...there were SEVERAL different tallies by the military and the Joint Chiefs study done in april actually claimed that "figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities." A study done my General MacArthur claimed 145,000 casualties in 120days.

And a study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

All of this was presented to Truman well before he ever made the decision to drop the bomb

[viale]

maybe they are pissed because the U.S. never acknowledged or apologized for what in many circles are considered a warcrime.

Preturbed: dont be so sure on that, the Israelies made a big scene over a german destroyer entering israeli waters in a peacekeeping/NATO expedition a few years ago. (although other ww2 agendas of the nazis seems to have been adopted quite well)