Do nuclear weapons really keep us safe?

[Ten oz]

General Dwight D. Eisenhower: "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I 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 second 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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=63

 

William Daniel Leahy United States' first de facto Chairman of the Joint chief of staff 1942-1949:

"Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."^[6]

 

In 1985 Richard Nixon recalled discussing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with MacArthur (General Douglas MacArthur):

MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him.^[84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Truman%27s_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur#Nuclear_weapons

 

I could qoute many more admirals and Generals but I will stop there. The 3 above represent the most celebrated military minds of world world II and they all felt the use of Atomic weapons against Japan was unethical and/or out right unneccessary. How does the view that there was a tactical purpose that saved American lives persisit in the face of clear historical evidence to the contrary?

[dimreepr]

 

Why would they have believed their enemy?

 

 

Because the bomb exploded where the enemy said it would.

How?

 

 

 

Didn't they have radio?

Good post Ten oz another +1.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Because the bomb exploded where the enemy said it would.

 

 

Didn't they have radio?

Good post Ten oz another +1.

Have you heard of jamming?

TenOz's post would be a lot more convincing if it was contemporaneous.

 

It's a collection of quotes saying what people say they thought.

But it doesn't necessarily reflect what they said and did at the time.

[dimreepr]

Have you heard of jamming?

 

 

Yes but they would/could only jam an expected signal.

 

 

TenOz's post would be a lot more convincing if it was contemporaneous.

It's a collection of quotes saying what people say they thought.

But it doesn't necessarily reflect what they said and did at the time.

 

 

 

Indeed but who or what suggests they didn’t?

[Moontanman]

Why would anyone assume that use of a nuke would mean use of all nukes? I'll go back to ajb and say what if we adopted our enemies tactics and threatened to destroy Mecca (I am not assuming we are at war with all muslims, just a mind exercise) would every other nuke in the world suddenly explode or would powers that have nukes see the overwhelming force we actually weld and think twice, Russia and China certainly would have no incentive to retaliate and smaller nuke powers would be stupid to think they could match our fire power.

[swansont]

That wasn’t my intention when I started this thread but I can’t decide the direction/focus of the discussion.

But you asked the question. You have control over that.

Why would anyone assume that use of a nuke would mean use of all nukes? I'll go back to ajb and say what if we adopted our enemies tactics and threatened to destroy Mecca (I am not assuming we are at war with all muslims, just a mind exercise) would every other nuke in the world suddenly explode or would powers that have nukes see the overwhelming force we actually weld and think twice, Russia and China certainly would have no incentive to retaliate and smaller nuke powers would be stupid to think they could match our fire power.

 

World history probably has far fewer examples of walking away than of deciding that any attack or slight must be answered. For honor, or code, or to save face, or whatever BS reason the culture dictates. Chances are that someone will decide an eye for an eye is the only path.

[zapatos]

I doubt the people affected were greatly concerned that their deaths were as part of a military target or as a way for the military to demonstrate their power.

I doubt that anyone is claiming they were.

 

 

But since the 1st demonstration was so conclusive at Hiroshima the only legitimate reason to drop the 2^nd was to demonstrate that the 1^st could be repeated; why then choose a city of innocents doing as they're told?

I imagine once we dropped the first bomb that not many thought it was a fluke that could not be repeated. If you are in a bar fight and someone pulls out a gun that vaporizes your left hand, do you think "ah, he'll never be able to do that again!".

 

Perhaps the fact that we were still at war with Japan was considered a legitimate reason to continue to press the attack against them.

[MigL]

"That we're like animals! It's in the blood! It's natural!

Peace? That's an accident! It's what is!

When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing. When the killing stops in one place, it starts in another, but that's okay... 'cause you're killing for your country.

But it ain't your country who asks you, it's a few men up top who want it.

Old men start it, young men fight it, nobody wins, everybody in the middle dies... and nobody tells the truth!

God's gonna make all that go away?"

 

RAMBO, 2008

( Sylvester Stallone, deeper than you thought )

[Ten oz]

Have you heard of jamming?

TenOz's post would be a lot more convincing if it was contemporaneous.

 

It's a collection of quotes saying what people say they thought.

But it doesn't necessarily reflect what they said and did at the time.

Setting the bar at what members of the Dept of Defense said in real time is not reasonable. Generals, Admirals, and etc do not speak out against their own chain of command in the middle of ongoing operations. It is always after the fact we find out how they felt and what advice they provided.

 

In real time various Admirals and generals debated a variety of issues surround the invasion of Japan. Official records released do reflect that Admirals Leahy and King believe blockades and continued airstrikes alone would've been enough to finish the war. They also reflect the General Macarthur rejected the casuality estimates Gen. Marshal was providing the President.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html

 

Of course these are military men. They would not have made out right objections against policy or the President. They do as they are ordered and make what recommendations they are permitted. Anything they privately communicated off the record is obviously not availible for review. However I see no reason to assume that Dwight Eisenhower, William Leahy, Ernst King, and etc are not telling the truth. Eisenhower claims he communicated his grave misgivings. As a general speaking to the Sec of War (his boss) what else would there have been for him to do?

[Moontanman]

But you asked the question. You have control over that.

 

World history probably has far fewer examples of walking away than of deciding that any attack or slight must be answered. For honor, or code, or to save face, or whatever BS reason the culture dictates. Chances are that someone will decide an eye for an eye is the only path.

 

 

but will the people who weld nukes come to that conclusion? Russia or China will commit suicide because Mecca was nuked?

[swansont]

 

 

but will the people who weld nukes come to that conclusion? Russia or China will commit suicide because Mecca was nuked?

 

It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and there are other people who have nukes. The scary issue with having a religious war would be that it wouldn't have to be a country that retaliated, if religious extremists ever get hold of a weapon.

[Moontanman]

 

It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and there are other people who have nukes. The scary issue with having a religious war would be that it wouldn't have to be a country that retaliated, if religious extremists ever get hold of a weapon.

 

 

Many if not most people seem to indicate they think that use of one nuke would be the end of the world nor do they take into account that some countries can put a nuke through your living room window others can barely hit the ground. I do think that religious extremism poses the most likely danger.

 

Some of this misconception rides on the idea of MAD, some countries figure into this idea others do not. North Korea for instance maybe nuts enough to kick a giant in the shin but their capabilities are limited and if they did would China back them up or participate in bringing them down.

 

At this point in time I doubt very much that a lesser power like China would protect someone like North Korea, but once you decide you are doing God's work all bets are off...

Edited August 10, 2015 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Yes but they would/could only jam an expected signal.

 

 

 

 

Indeed but who or what suggests they didn’t?

You can only tune in and listen to an expected signal so...

Unless I'm mistaken they are broadly politicians...

[waitforufo]

 

 

But since the 1st demonstration was so conclusive at Hiroshima the only legitimate reason to drop the 2^nd was to demonstrate that the 1^st could be repeated; why then choose a city of innocents doing as they're told?

When the Japanese asked us on 12/7/41 to come and play war with them, I'm sure they understood that when you play with the big boys you have to learn how to take your lumps. We were just dishing out lumps.

Edited August 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

Setting the bar at what members of the Dept of Defense said in real time is not reasonable. Generals, Admirals, and etc do not speak out against their own chain of command in the middle of ongoing operations. It is always after the fact we find out how they felt and what advice they provided.

 

In real time various Admirals and generals debated a variety of issues surround the invasion of Japan. Official records released do reflect that Admirals Leahy and King believe blockades and continued airstrikes alone would've been enough to finish the war. They also reflect the General Macarthur rejected the casuality estimates Gen. Marshal was providing the President.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html

 

Of course these are military men. They would not have made out right objections against policy or the President. They do as they are ordered and make what recommendations they are permitted. Anything they privately communicated off the record is obviously not availible for review. However I see no reason to assume that Dwight Eisenhower, William Leahy, Ernst King, and etc are not telling the truth. Eisenhower claims he communicated his grave misgivings. As a general speaking to the Sec of War (his boss) what else would there have been for him to do?

Well, you seem to have slightly contradicted yourself but no matter.

Since there are contemporary records it seems that they did hold broadly the opinions they said they did. (which means it's not setting the bar too high).

 

The fact is we will never know what would have happened if they dropped the 2nd bomb on an uninhabited forest somewhere just to prove the point.

One possibility is that it might have failed to go off and thus given our enemy a lot of data about the bomb.

Another is that they might have gambled (correctly) that we only had two bombs and carried on fighting leading to further loss of life.

or maybe- given a couple of weeks to realise just what they had already been hit with, they would have surrendered without the 2nd bomb ever being used.

 

hindsight is 20 20.

[Ten oz]

Well, you seem to have slightly contradicted yourself but no matter.

Since there are contemporary records it seems that they did hold broadly the opinions they said they did. (which means it's not setting the bar too high).

 

The fact is we will never know what would have happened if they dropped the 2nd bomb on an uninhabited forest somewhere just to prove the point.

One possibility is that it might have failed to go off and thus given our enemy a lot of data about the bomb.

Another is that they might have gambled (correctly) that we only had two bombs and carried on fighting leading to further loss of life.

or maybe- given a couple of weeks to realise just what they had already been hit with, they would have surrendered without the 2nd bomb ever being used.

 

hindsight is 20 20.

Not a contradiction. They are on the record in real time saying Japan was already beaten and that casualties from an invasion wouldnt be high as Truman feared. There is nothing (released anyway) showing how they felt about using Atomic Bombs or how they initially reacted. Their feels about the bombs specifically is what's addressed in the previous quotes.

Planning the invasion was not nearly as top secret. So there are more memorandums and reports for review regarding those discussions.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the 2 things about that are it doesn't mean what becomes known couldn't have been known all along or that no one knew to begin with. I am sure you are familiar with the hindsight political question often asked about Iraq: "knowing what you know no would you". The question poses more as a passive defense for the choices made than an honest question. In truth many knew then what everyone acknowledges today. Passion trumped data and those who played along look back and pretend they were misinformed rather than admitting they were stubborn.

[MigL]

I'll have to agree with John. All of the mentioned Generals may have had misgivings about using the bombs, but so did Truman.

If he were still alive today could he point to those misgivings and say that he opposed using the bombs ?

 

The historical fact is that he did,and his Generals went along with it, Ten oz.

 

Every time Manchester United loses a game, both me and John, can always say afterwards, what they should have done to win.

[Harold Squared]

If nuclear weapons are not a credible deterrent, why does Israel have them?

[Ten oz]

I'll have to agree with John. All of the mentioned Generals may have had misgivings about using the bombs, but so did Truman.

If he were still alive today could he point to those misgivings and say that he opposed using the bombs ?

 

The historical fact is that he did,and his Generals went along with it, Ten oz.

 

Every time Manchester United loses a game, both me and John, can always say afterwards, what they should have done to with it.

It Truman were alive today? Truman died in 1972. Truman had time to call it a mistake and never did. As a matter of fact in 1963 Truman wrote to the Chicago Sun-times that he had no regrets and would do it again.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/flip_books/index.php?tldate=1963-07-30&groupid=3707&titleid=&pagenumber=1&collectionid=ihow

 

The Eisenhower quote previously posted is from 1953. Eight years later and not 20 or 30 years later.

 

May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

 

I won't fill this page with quotes. The information is easily searched if you are legitimately interested. The comments made by Generals, Admirals, and former Presidents are hardly death bed confessions from decades after the fact. It is not reasonable to demand documented opposition from before the fact. Had anyone come forward and told the press that we had such a weapon and were about t use it they would have spent the rest of their life in prison. The project was beyond top secret. In the middle of a war soldiers follow orders whether they like them or not. It is ridiculously to imply that by going along with commands they somehow are equally responsible as those giving the commands.

 

The justification has always been that American casualties would have been too high had there been an invasion. I have already provide links showing that the top Navy Admirals felt no invasion was needed and that Blockades and continued air strike alone were enough. MacArthur was placed in charge of planning the invasion. He disputed the casualty estimates being provided to Truman. That is documented.

[swansont]

 

The justification has always been that American casualties would have been too high had there been an invasion. I have already provide links showing that the top Navy Admirals felt no invasion was needed and that Blockades and continued air strike alone were enough. MacArthur was placed in charge of planning the invasion. He disputed the casualty estimates being provided to Truman. That is documented.

 

So? This isn't an exact science, these are estimates. How do you know MacArthur was right?

 

Was the dropping of the bomb not an air strike? If we had continued with conventional air strikes, how many people would have died (on both sides) before we had peace? It's not like air raids were risk-free for the US. How many people die from starvation as the result of a blockade?

[Ten oz]

MacArthur was responsible for organizing and planning the invasion. He team was responsible for generating the causality estimates.His opinion is rather relevant. Also I don't see how maybes and what ifs justifies the only two uses of atomic weapons on a population in history. It wasn't a last resort. It was done preemptively to avoid sending soldiers in on land. We were winning the war and had Japan contained. The issue was there surrender and not whether or not they'd invade the states. Many would argue it was done to make a statement to Russia. Or at least that was a factor.

 

We demanded Japan surrender without conditions. Which meant losing their emperor who was a living god to many at the time. After the bombing we conceded and allowed the emperor to stay. I hardly see how trying to work out such a deal before the bombing would have hurt anything. It isnt as if Japan had a bomb themselves and we needed to beat them to using it.

[DrP]

They were never going to surrender... the Emperor was still assuring civilians victory up to the second bomb was dropped (saw this in a documentary) - he was deluded and the people just done what ever he said. A horrific tragedy, but it bought a quick end vs a ridiculously stubborn opponent. They were idiots for attacking the US in the first place. They were also absolutely barbaric and cruel towards their prisoners - Might sound cold, but I have little sympathy now. Also awakened them to their ridiculous delusion that he was a god... he wasn't, it is good that Japanese people have been freed from this lie.

Edited August 11, 2015 by DrP

[Roamer]

 

 

Do nuclear weapons realy keep us save ?

 

Has there ever been an invasion of(or nuclear attack on) a country that has nuclear weapons ?

 

 

 

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”

 

But when that stone can kill untold numbers shouldn’t he who thinks ,or pretends, he is without sin, be restrained?

 

This is like saying that when you are attacked by a drunk in a bar you can't hit him on the nose because "his nose-cells are innocent"

[dimreepr]

 

Has there ever been an invasion of(or nuclear attack on) a country that has nuclear weapons ?

 

 

My anti-polar bear fence has been 100% successful, yet my Canadian cousin’s fence fails every time.

 

Would the Ukraine have been safe with a nuclear arsenal? My guess, given the way Putin attacked, is no.

[swansont]

MacArthur was responsible for organizing and planning the invasion. He team was responsible for generating the causality estimates.His opinion is rather relevant.

 

The point is it's still an opinion, rather than fact. He could have been wrong. And you mentioned other estimates being fed to Truman, so obviously MacArthur's team wasn't the only one doing this.

MacArthur was responsible for organizing and planning the invasion. He team was responsible for generating the causality estimates.His opinion is rather relevant. Also I don't see how maybes and what ifs justifies the only two uses of atomic weapons on a population in history. It wasn't a last resort. It was done preemptively to avoid sending soldiers in on land. We were winning the war and had Japan contained. The issue was there surrender and not whether or not they'd invade the states. Many would argue it was done to make a statement to Russia. Or at least that was a factor.

 

True. Perhaps it was a message.

 

My issue with this is that if you've decided to bomb and barricade over the course of weeks or months them into submission and surrender, and that kills a quarter million people, is that any different from dropping two bombs and achieving the same end? What is the moral difference between the two? It seems to me that the discussion of killing civilians mostly comes up in this topic, and yet around 30 million civilians died in the war.