Garm wrote:My apologies.
No problem, that can be a confusing argument I make there.
Ati wrote:I personally think that it would have been best to use the bomb as an intimidation tactic. Drop it in an uninhabited harbor somewhere off the coast of Japan. To make it really personal, level mount Fuji. Give a really, really graphic idea of what the atomic bomb can do. If they surrendered, then you've won. If they don't, then start on a city.
That was considered. The Allies thought about setting one of the bombs off out in the ocean as a demonstration for Japan, but they wanted to have more than one bomb available to drop on targets so that Japan would not be able to "call a bluff" by the Allies and correctly guess that there weren't any more. The next atomic bomb wouldn't be available until something like November.
BattleMoose wrote:The argument has been made, the atomic bomb was dropped to save American lives, and this seems to be okay with most people on this forum.
An action was taken, to kill civilians, which was believed would directly or indirectly aid the war effort in the favour of the side performing the action.
While an important consideration to ending the war was to save Allied
lives (not just American, but British, Russian, Australian, New Zealand, Indian, and many other countries that I missed as well), this is not something that I will use as a main argument. Though I do feel I owe my existence to the use of the Atomic bombs, as my grandfather spent his entire time in the Navy training for the invasion of Japan, and very easily could have been killed in it.
Anyway, the Allies did consider how many of their own lives it would save. But the main interest was to end the war in the fastest way possible while causing as few deaths as possible, Allied and Japanese.
Which is why this:
BattleMoose wrote:I dont think I am missing anything in that comment, but the question I have is this. Was the Marzabotto massacre thus equally justifiable?
I draw only one difference between the two, that is, in Germany's instance, members of the civlian populations of Europe were commiting war crimes.
doesn't work. Germany wasn't concerned with killing as few people as possible here, they were just eliminating a threat to their soldiers. These are completely different situations.
Kaiyas wrote: According to Wikipedia, many of the high-ranking U.S. officers opposed dropping the bomb
Your article is contradicting what it said not a page before what you quoted.
That same Wiki article wrote:Professor of history Robert James Maddox wrote that "Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs.
Also, the statement made by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey which you quoted was not the whole story. The survey discounted use of the atomic bombs and a declaration of war by Russia to give a worst case scenario of how long it would take Japan to surrender if the conventional bombing campaign was stepped up. If the Allies had increased their bombing efforts then more Japanese civilians would have been killed than were in the use of the Atomic bombs.
The truth is, anyone in the U.S. at the time was woefully unaware of the situation in Japan. The citizens wanted peace, but the military did not, and the military held much more sway than the citizens. Anyone who, at the time, said that Japan would have surrendered shortly if the Allies had continued to just to sit back and blockade the nation did not know just what was going on in the country.