Bombing Japan Saved More People Than It Killed.

Recommended Videos

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
I know that a lot of people will probably hate me for saying this, but I believe it is true. The death toll from the atomic bombs is numbered between 90000-166000 for Hiroshima, and between 60000-80000 for Nagasaki. The bombings were catastrophic, but they pale compared to the alternative.

Operation Downfall [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall]: The Land Invasion of Japan.


Split into two parts, Operation Olympic, and Operation Coronet, the invasion had projected casualty rates in the millions for Allied Soldiers, and tens of millions for the Japanese.

Operation Olympic was targeted at southern Japan, specifically, the Island of Kyushu. To put into perspective how large this invasion would be, consider this: the naval armada would have been bigger than the Normandy Invasion. Operation Coronet would also be massive, with the largest seaborne invasion action in history. Coronet would land on the Kanto Plain, and make a drive inland for Tokyo.

On the Japanese side, all defenses were set on Kyushu, with thousands of Kamikaze planes hoping to overwhelm Allied Naval Forces through sheer numbers. Ten thousand kamikaze planes were built, with only two thousand deployed at the Battle of Okinawa earlier in the year. This left 8000 planes ready to collide with allied forces at Kyushu.

On the ground, the defenses numbered 900000 soldiers, or about 14 Corps. This is not factoring in the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which rounded up every able bodied man in the country to act as combat support. They numbered 28 million strong at the time. Despite weapons shortages, the Japanese were ready to fight to the last man to defend Kyushu, hopefully blunting the invasion force.

Proposed weapons included gas warfare and nuclear weapons, as neither the Japanese nor the Americans had signed the Geneva Protocol banning biological warfare at the time.

Oh, and if that wasn't destructive enough, this is all without considering that the Soviet Union was also about to declare war on Japan and invade them too.

So let's recap: The Japanese were ready to fight to the last man, woman and child to defend their homeland. Every last one. Had the bombs not been dropped, Operation Downfall would have had the potential to annihilate the entire country, with millions of deaths on both sides.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed that. At the relatively low casualties compared to the atrocious death tolls on the Eastern Front or the Second Sino-Japanese war, the atomic bomb was probably the best solution. The other advantage is that it brought about the major awareness of the destructive capabilities of nuclear warfare, which has so far ensured that they never be used again in case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Was the bombing morally unethical? Possibly. Was it necessary? Yes. Could it have been much, much worse? Yes.

When faced with the alternative of genocide, I choose the option that ends the war with the least amount of death.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Jan 19, 2011
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
I'm going to have to agree with you on that.

Both options are really horrible, and who knows what could've happened if Japan was invaded, Japan could've formed completely different than what we know of them today.

And as horrible as bombing the hell out of them was, it brought attention to nuclear weapons and how destructive they are.

Disgusting options, aren't they?
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Fiz_The_Toaster said:
I'm going to have to agree with you on that.

Both options are really horrible, and who knows what could've happened if Japan was invaded, Japan could've formed completely different than what we know of them today.

And as horrible as bombing the hell out of them was, it brought attention to nuclear weapons and how destructive they are.

Disgusting options, aren't they?
It's choosing the lesser of two evils isn't it? Thankfully choosing the bombs meant they'd (hopefully) never be used again.
 

IsraelRocks

New member
Apr 21, 2010
352
0
0
I might be mistaken but i was under the impression that the OPs claim was pretty much accepted by historians and such.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Jan 19, 2011
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
Soviet Heavy said:
Fiz_The_Toaster said:
I'm going to have to agree with you on that.

Both options are really horrible, and who knows what could've happened if Japan was invaded, Japan could've formed completely different than what we know of them today.

And as horrible as bombing the hell out of them was, it brought attention to nuclear weapons and how destructive they are.

Disgusting options, aren't they?
It's choosing the lesser of two evils isn't it? Thankfully choosing the bombs meant they'd (hopefully) never be used again.
I hope so. A friend of mine went to Japan and went to the Hiroshima International Peace Park, and was emotionally drained when he left. He brought back some pictures and I hope people visit that place before they even think about using them.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
IsraelRocks said:
I might be mistaken but i was under the impression that the OPs claim was pretty much accepted by historians and such.
Historians, yes. The general public? I'm just letting people know. Hopefully provide some insight into a piece of history they might not know about.
 

Kryzantine

New member
Feb 18, 2010
827
0
0
This is not news.

No, seriously. I admire your opinion, and I absolutely agree with it, but was there a need to make this thread, that will inevitably degenerate into one of the 90 billion other atomic-bomb discussions that are going on the internet?

I'm not sorry at all, I read the thread title, I knew exactly what the OP was going to contain and I was right, though perhaps I would have emphasized the part about the USSR invading Japan. That shit scares us. That's the tiebreaker in the argument over whether we should have unleashed the bomb.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
Soviet Heavy said:
On the ground, the defenses numbered 900000 soldiers, or about 14 divisions.
Y'what now?! Nine-hundred thousand is closer to 14 corps rather than divisions.

Anyway, I agree, effectively on all counts. Seeing as it was effectively a total war as far as both combatants were concerned and as reprehensible as use of the A-bomb was, it was better that it was used. Though you're rather making light of the casualty count, because the radiation caused a lot of collateral damage/fatalities etc (still not as many as would've been caused by an invasion, but still).

But, had the Americans gone on to lose the war even after the dropping of the bomb (unlikely, I know, because they still had more if the Japanese still refused to surrender), the Manhattan project staff and associated military/political people would've been tried as war criminals. Thus, it's a case of the winner writes the rules, but in this situation, it's more of 'fuck, I really didn't want to do that, and I pray to God that no-one needs to do that ever again'.

As Fiz_The_Toaster says, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The problem comes in that Japan was in such a shit state and depending on source, they had already attempted to sue for peace (questionable, I know, but they exist), that a niggling part of me thinks that all the Americans would've needed to do was maintain naval/aerial supremacy for a few months, just attack factory districts etc. and public discontent would've risen and forced the leadership's hand. But then, I know how much of a militaristic dick Tojo was so that might not have been the guess. Probably never know.
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,653
0
0
I'm pretty sure in the UK it was part of the compulsory history syllabus, so theoretically everyone should know that part.

However a lot of people don't take it comparatively, and as an incident any use of a nuclear weapon is pretty bad. It also doesn't help that it's very hard for people to understand the Japanese mentality. A lot of people in know think that in the face of a massive invasion they would have surrendered without major losses.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Jan 19, 2011
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
IsraelRocks said:
I might be mistaken but i was under the impression that the OPs claim was pretty much accepted by historians and such.
Yeah, but unfortunately there are people out there that don't see it that way. I've heard some really messed statements like, "We should've done both to teach them a lesson," and "Historians are lying, we should've dropped more and Tokyo too for good measure."

Facts be damned I guess.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
The primary difference between those two is that the Nukes killed primarily civilians, while the alternative would kill primarily soldiers.

In all honesty, I agree with you. Dropping the bombs was likely the best solution, but a lot of people see upwards of a hundred thousand civilian deaths and get pissed off.
 

Master Kuja

New member
May 28, 2008
802
0
0
You're right, most, if not all people know you're right. This is a widely accepted fact for all the reasons you stated, I'd be surprised if you got much hate here, I dare say most people would agree with you.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
arragonder said:
No it fucking didn't, stop making this fucking thread every fucking month, it doesn't make you correct just because you say it again and again.
Mhm.... You have anything else to say? Or are your just gonna leave that there? How exactly does two atomic bombs killing a mere fraction of the death toll in the European Theater compare the the potential annihilation of a country?
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Agayek said:
Soviet Heavy said:
The primary difference between those two is that the Nukes killed primarily civilians, while the alternative would kill primarily soldiers.

In all honesty, I agree with you. Dropping the bombs was likely the best solution, but a lot of people see upwards of a hundred thousand civilian deaths and get pissed off.
The sad truth is that is wasn't even the first time the allies had bombed civilian targets. While no doubt the worst example, there was also the infamous Bomber Command in Europe. Fifteen miles of Dresden were reduced to ash during a firebombing campaign, that barely left a dent on the military production. Hamburg was burned to the ground. Pforzheim left one third of the population dead.
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
We will never know for sure what would have killed less people, but now America isn't the only wielding that terrifying gun, we cannot afford for people to think there is a worthwhile excuse for nuclear attacks.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
Agayek said:
The primary difference between those two is that the Nukes killed primarily civilians, while the alternative would kill primarily soldiers.

In all honesty, I agree with you. Dropping the bombs was likely the best solution, but a lot of people see upwards of a hundred thousand civilian deaths and get pissed off.
That in itself is debatable. With the inevitable advance through urban territory, collateral death would've/could've been just as horrific, and with a general rhetoric among Americans that the Japanese were sub-human/monkeys/should be exterminated (more of a public rhetoric, but it would no doubt have pervaded the military as well) and among Japanese that the Americans would've come and raped their women etc., Japanese civilians would've done their utmost to help repel the invader. Perhaps invasion would've killed more civilians than the bomb. Once again, probably never know.