[ThereBeDragons]

Exactly, so why was it a faulty comparison again?

Because the argument was not merely that the Japanese are legitimate targets because they have not rebelled against their government, the argument is that the Japanese were part and parcel of the Japanese war machine, and are therefore legitimate targets.

I don't see how this nullifies the point at all.

A civilian population which dedicates 100% of productive effort of 100% of the population is more tied to a war than a population which dedicates 5% of it's GDP to the military, of which less than 0.5% was directed at the Middle East.

[grassroots1]

Because the argument was not merely that the Japanese are legitimate targets because they have not rebelled against their government, the argument is that the Japanese were part and parcel of the Japanese war machine, and are therefore legitimate targets.

Those two things are the same.

A civilian population which dedicates 100% of productive effort of 100% of the population is more tied to a war than a population which dedicates 5% of it's GDP to the military, of which less than 0.5% was directed at the Middle East.

First of all, we would have to find what portion of that 100% went to sustaining the actual population, what portion went to things besides military, etc. I can't imagine that it's as black and white as you paint it. Second, as I said, 28% of our tax revenues go toward the military... we continue to work and feed into the system. American people are just as condemnable as the Japanese in WWII, as far as I'm concerned. (In my opinion, not condemnable in the least, especially given the disinformation consistently spread here, and the general ignorance)

[ThereBeDragons]

Those two things are the same.

Not even close. Not remotely. Do you understand the concept of a total war and how we have not been one for the past sixty years?

First of all, we would have to find what portion of that 100% went to sustaining the actual population, what portion went to things besides military, etc. I can't imagine that it's as black and white as you paint it.

The Japanese population in 1944 was producing zero consumer and zero luxury goods.

Second, as I said, 28% of our tax revenues go toward the military... we continue to work and feed into the system.

If you think that contributing 1-5% of your output and 100% of your output in support of a war are the same, I can hardly convince you otherwise.

[J Oswald]

And you're absolutely certain that those 'many deaths' would have been more than the 200,000 civilians killed by the atomic bombings?

Any impartial observer would draw that conclusion. Prolonged sieges rarely are good for the health of the besieged people.

What I don't understand is how you can claim that the Japanese would have fought to the death in some kind of war of national extinction or whatever yet they gave up after only two atomic bombings.

You fail to understand the situation. The Japanese High Command organized the "Volunteer Fighting Corps" to militarily defend against an amphibious invasion of the Islands. That unit could have contained

all male civilians between the ages of 15 to 60 years, and unmarried females of 17 to 40 years.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... /index.php

I quote from the first source this, "Japan was still far from surrender. She had ample reserves of weapons and ammunition and an army of 5,000,000 troops, 2,000,000 of them in the home islands. The latter could be expected to put up a strong resistance to invasion. In the opinion of the intelligence experts, neither blockade nor bombing alone would produce unconditional surrender before the date set for invasion. And the invasion itself, they believed, would be costly and possibly prolonged."

Do you honestly believe that these millions of troops would have greeted any amphibious landings with flowers in hand? One only needs to look at the amphibious campaigns against Iwo Jima and Okinawa to see that the vast majority of those troops would have fought to the death.

Disagree. You don't seem to know what strategic bombing is. I am willing to forgive this, however, because the topic of the thread is "Hiroshima & Nagasaki" specifically. But it is important to remember that the atomic bombings were only an extension of the strategic bombing campaign that had been conducted up until that point.

Oh, thank you, most magnanimous one, for allowing that luxury. I know perfectly well what strategic bombing is, but this thread is concerned with, as you yourself state, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

OR what total war is. I would love to hear about this 'doctrine' you speak of.

If you don't know what total war is already, I can't help you. You could start with Wikipedia and work your way through the dozens of sources they have on the definition and practice of total war.

Of course not. Why did you ask me this silly question? Do you really believe waves of bamboo stick wielding civilians would have resisted the Allies and the soviets to the bitter end?

They most certainly would have. The Home Islands were quite literally the last part of Japanese soil remaining under their control, and the populace was fanatically loyal to the Emperor. The Volunteer Fighting Corps had been assembled, and could have called upon over 20 million people. Here's a picture of what this organization consisted of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kokumin_Giyutai.jpg

Hmm, schoolchildren with guns...civilians, I would think. However, considering the shortage of weapons, melee weaponry would have been far more commonly issued.

[grassroots1]

Not even close. Not remotely. Do you understand the concept of a total war and how we have not been one for the past sixty years?

The justification is the same.

"Because the argument was not merely that the Japanese are legitimate targets because they have not rebelled against their government, the argument is that the Japanese were part and parcel of the Japanese war machine, and are therefore legitimate targets."

Americans are part and parcel of the American war machine.

The Japanese population in 1944 was producing zero consumer and zero luxury goods.

Are you actually arguing that their murder was justified?

If you think that contributing 5% of your output and 100% of your output in support of a war are the same, I can hardly convince you otherwise.

The justification is the same, that was the only point I was making. For the record it's hard to include sustaining the home population as supporting a war, especially when you're only considering military expenditures for the United States. Makes yer point real good though.

[ThereBeDragons]

Americans are part and parcel of the American war machine.

Okay, let me rephase: the Japanese civilian population was fully engaged in and completely inseparable in occupation and production, from the Japanese war machine.

Are you actually arguing that their murder was justified?

I do not consider deaths in war which are a result of collateral damage or which have legitimate strategic aim to be murder. (Of course, the term "legitimate" is itself a question.) Whether they are "justified" or "war crimes" depends on your definition thereof. A complicating factor is that, unlike the Germans, the Japanese did not conveniently separate their factories from their population centers. I find it also to be virtually indisputable that, without any bombing, nuclear or otherwise, Japan simply would not have surrendered in such a way that permitted the Western occupation of the Japanese homeland for months if not years; on this count, it becomes a question of whether the ends justify the means.

[Godstud]

And you're absolutely certain that those 'many deaths' would have been more than the 200,000 civilians killed by the atomic bombings?

Absolutely. Please, tell me again what the casualties were on Okinawa? @250,000 soldiers and civilians
What would they have been with only a few more weeks of US bombings?

The Emperor Hirohito surrendered only AFTER the two atomic bombings, and it was hardly immediate. The first bomb was not enough, and obviously a longer and more prolonged war would not have been enough to initiate an unconditional surrender(removing the threat of a WW3), which was part of why that surrender was needed. Truman had to make sure that the Japanese war machine, largely intact aside from its Air Force and Navy, was not a threat in the future. The Japanese Imperial Army was still powerful enough to make a land invasion almost unthinkable, in terms of casualties.

Please note that many Japanese strongholds, like Rabaul and Truk, still existed in the Islands. The US had leap-frogged over several to get airfields within striking distance of Japan.

Any impartial observer would draw that conclusion. Prolonged sieges rarely are good for the health of the besieged people.

QFT

Japan is still lucky that America didn't treat surrendering Japan, like Japan treated surrendering Americans. Talk about war crimes...

[Artyom_Cat]

I think that if we are so intelligent and honest to create the UN or the OTAN we should also be able to acknowledge when we have used mortal power against innocent people. I have never heard the responsibles of this disaster apologising for what they did.

Please, we are in the 21 century not in the ancient times when the winners did whatever they wanted. It is a war and obviously people die, but we are humans before everything.

[Social_Critic]

Cookie M said

Part of the reason was also to defeat Japan before the Soviets would take part in attacking the main Japanese islands which would have resulted in Japan's being divided like Germany and Korea.

Cookie, I think the Soviet amphibious landing would have required the construction of a second railway through Siberia, which according to my estimates would have taken about 6 years given the conditions in the Soviet Union at the time. The logistics involved are mind boggling. I worked on a project to send materials from Yekaterinburg to Vladivostok, and we gave up because it was so convoluted and expensive.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think the Soviet amphibious landing would have required the construction of a second railway through Siberia

Why do you think that? The Soviets conducted several large offensives in the region, including the invasion of the Kuril islands, without any major logistical problems.

I worked on a project to send materials from Yekaterinburg to Vladivostok, and we gave up because it was so convoluted and expensive.

Unlike the Red Army you probably couldn't simply insist on monopolising all rail traffic in the region so I'm not sure how valid your comparison is.

[Rich]

By the same logic, had America not interfered in the first place, and awful lot of trouble would also have been saved, as monstrous as the implications of that might sound. (I'm assuming that what you refer to as 'trouble' is Communism, right?)

Well I'd probably prefer to go a bit further back. If the United States had not intervened in WWI, the world might have been much better for it. The Kaisers Germany might not be my first choice for European policeman, but I doubt they could have been worse than what actually happened. Having intervened they needed to clear up the mess they had created. Its like Iraq, it would have been a lot better if America hadn't supported Saddam's war against Iran, in the first place, but once it created a gigantic mess only America had the military power to start sorting it out.

And on the main point the Japanese could be a touch fanatic. Even with the nukes The last Japanese soldier didn't surrender till 1974.