Do nuclear weapons really keep us safe?

[Ten oz]

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.

Realtime documented concerns and hindsight regrets paint a pretty good picture. If you are saying that there is no way to know for sure, than yeah, that can be used to justify almost every decision ever made. Once decision A gets made decision B becomes speculation.

 

As for who was providing Truman information; it was MacArthurs team with regards to causality estimates. The disagreement was in how Truman's administration interpreted the information. Political advisors and military leaders have different jobs.

[swansont]

Realtime documented concerns and hindsight regrets paint a pretty good picture.

 

Since we didn't invade, I don't see how that's relevant to knowing how good the casualty estimates were.

[DrP]

True - casualties to US from the 2 bombs = 0

[waitforufo]

True - casualties to US from the 2 bombs = 0

There you go. Zero is the number of US casualties we were looking for. We weren't playing tiddlywinks with the Japanese. The US suffered 111,606 men killed. China lost 4 million. The atrocities of the Japanese exceed that of the Nazis. How do you explain one more American death from the Japanese when you have the bomb. You don't have to. You just nuke them.

Edited August 11, 2015 by waitforufo

[zapatos]

I don't see where the issue is. If we had bombed them with conventional weapons we would have killed just as many Japanese and no one would be talking about it. I doubt they cared if they died from incendiary bombs, conventional explosives, bullets or nukes. All result in the same death.

Using a nuke then was not the same as using a nuke now. There were only two at the time, and we really didn't know a whole lot about the broader impact of their use. The entire war all sides kept increasing the effectiveness of their weapons and they used them as soon as they got them. This was just a bigger bomb.

Edited August 11, 2015 by zapatos

[dimreepr]

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

 

 

Indeed but I can’t control the answer/s.

 

 

Edit...I can lead but I can't force anyone to follow.

Edited August 11, 2015 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

 

Since we didn't invade, I don't see how that's relevant to knowing how good the casualty estimates were.

No, but it shows that using the bombs was not a last resort. We had options. It was a preference and not a neccessity of war. The issue was how to best obtain surrender. Victory was not was already inevitable.

[Roamer]

 

 

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.

 

Ukraïne isn't save because of at least two different races inhabiting the country.

 

Would Iraq have been invaded had they actually possessed serious weapons-of-mass destruction(WMDs) or even MAD-capabilities ?

[CharonY]

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.

 

As others have noted elsewhere, this assessment is incorrect. It has to be recognized first that the war council was in charge of military affairs and the emperor basically had the sway only after the cabinet became evenly split after the second bomb and the Soviet attack. Even before the bombs dropped Japan was looking at terms to surrender, though the efforts started probably only in spring 1945, with the Soviets being instrumental as mediator.

 

What happened then in detail is somewhat shrouded in mystery and obfuscation as there are few detailed records about who advocated what within the cabinet, which opens things up to one-sided interpretation. But even before that it is clear that Japan was far from an unified voice. Tomoshige tried to assassinate the then prime minister Hideki Tojo in order to set up a new cabinet under Prince Higashikuni and immediately sue for peace via Moscow (Summer 1944).

 

Shigenori Togo (Minister of Foreign Affairs 1945) was a proponent of the Potsdam, whereas Korechika Anami (Minister of War) and Yoshijiro Umezo (Chief of Army) were opposed. The specific position of Prime minister Suzuki are more ambivalent. However, (and as usual for historic analyses) it is almost impossible to find an answer to what if scenarios (would they have surrendered without atomic strikes? Would they have surrendered if the Soviets had not attacked? Would they have surrendered if the Allies had promised to leave the Emperor untouched?) . As such any declarations with certainty to such speculations are unfounded.

[Harold Squared]

No, but it shows that using the bombs was not a last resort. We had options. It was a preference and not a neccessity of war. The issue was how to best obtain surrender. Victory was not was already inevitable.

It has been suggested that the acts of Truman in question were more for the benefit of the Soviets than the Japanese. If the Bomb had been available earlier we might all be having a similar conversation about Berlin, Bonn, or Munich.

 

Without a doubt, if such weapons were available to the Axis powers, they would have been used, in fact this is probably the only way Japanese balloon bombs or submarine delivered munitions could have any effect upon the United States mainland.

 

Why focus on these two cities, and not the dozens of ones bombed earlier in the war, by both sides? The "novelty" of nuclear bombs was a matter of destructive power, not the act of bombing cities.

Excellent point, the firebombing of Tokyo was just as much a product of the times as that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Ukraïne isn't save because of at least two different races inhabiting the country.

 

Would Iraq have been invaded had they actually possessed serious weapons-of-mass destruction(WMDs) or even MAD-capabilities ?

We have a couple of races in my country according to most. Japan has its Ainu ethnic minority as well. And I am willing to bet the answer to your question would be a resounding NO.

Thanks for asking it, though of course we hàve no way of knowing for sure.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Ten oz]

It has been suggested that the acts of Truman in question were more for the benefit of the Soviets than the Japanese. If the Bomb had been available earlier we might all be having a similar conversation about Berlin, Bonn, or Munich.

 

Without a doubt, if such weapons were available to the Axis powers, they would have been used, in fact this is probably the only way Japanese balloon bombs or submarine delivered munitions could have any effect upon the United States mainland.

Excellent point, the firebombing of Tokyo was just as much a product of the times as that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We have a couple of races in my country according to most. Japan has its Ainu ethnic minority as well. And I am willing to bet the answer to your question would be a resounding NO.

Thanks for asking it, though of course we hàve no way of knowing for sure.

We did not have the Atomic weapons sooner and neither did Germany, the Soviets, or Japan so it is pointless speculation. If Julius Caesar had atomic weapons he probably won have used them. It is an empty statement.

At the time we fire bombed Tokyo war in the Pacific was at its height. Victory was not guaranteed and the future unknown. Desperate times desperate measures. When we used the atomic weapons we were looking for how to most conveniently solicit a surrender. The war (world war) was finished. Japan was contained.

[waitforufo]

Japan was contained.

Our goal wasn't containment. It was surrender. In fact it was unconditional surrender. In the end however, we did allow them to keep their emperor.

[dimreepr]

 

Would Iraq have been invaded had they actually possessed serious weapons-of-mass destruction(WMDs) or even MAD-capabilities ?

 

 

Surprisingly, Harold Squared has basically answered for me but to add.

 

Whether they would or not depends on many things and falls within a bell curve and so maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t.

 

The point is there is no data, because the only time nukes have been used is when no one else had them, so we have no idea if we are safer with nukes or without them; especially when considered on a country by country basis.

And when considered on that basis I only see a legitimate argument for three countries to maintain a nuclear arsenal; America, Russia and China basically because they would cancel each other out politically and let’s face it they’re the only counties that can afford to maintain a significant arsenal.

[Roamer]

 

 

The point is there is no data, because the only time nukes have been used is when no one else had them,

 

Maybe that's no cold hard scientific data, but it certainly is relevant data.

[dimreepr]

 

Maybe that's no cold hard scientific data, but it certainly is relevant data.

 

 

How?

 

 

Surprisingly, Harold Squared has basically answered for me but to add.

 

Whether they would or not depends on many things and falls within a bell curve and so maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t.

 

The point is there is no data, because the only time nukes have been used is when no one else had them, so we have no idea if we are safer with nukes or without them; especially when considered on a country by country basis.

And when considered on that basis I only see a legitimate argument for three countries to maintain a nuclear arsenal; America, Russia and China basically because they would cancel each other out politically and let’s face it they’re the only counties that can afford to maintain a significant arsenal.

 

 

When there are only three countries it would be much easier to negotiate a nuke by nuke reduction and over time the numbers could reach a critical point where the maintenance would seem pointless so the deactivation would accelerate to the point that the threat is meaningless for almost all.

[Roamer]

the only time nukes have been used is when no one else had them

 

What is unclear about this ?

 

You don't go to your neighbour's house and shoot him, if you know he's got a gun.

The nazis and Japan wouldn't 've bombed the shit out of hostile cities if they had realized their enemies would soon have the same capabilities.

 

You can add additional reasons why some people don't do immoral things, they can be taught things, made to believe things,

and even move to a place where no polar bears live,

But their validity does not invalidate other reasons.

[dimreepr]

 

What is unclear about this ?

 

You don't go to your neighbour's house and shoot him, if you know he's got a gun.

The nazis and Japan wouldn't 've bombed the shit out of hostile cities if they had realized their enemies would soon have the same capabilities.

 

You can add additional reasons why some people don't do immoral things, they can be taught things, made to believe things,

and even move to a place where no polar bears live,

But their validity does not invalidate other reasons.

 

 

When viewed in context it's clear to me but you seem to be struggling.