Rosaria posted:

---

How do you know that?

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

Yes, and we went through 4 years of horrible island to island war beforehand. That's sorta an indication that the decision wasn't taken lightly, whether right or wrong in the end.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Japan is the only country that ever pissed off another country so bad that they got nuked.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

America is the only country that ever nuked anyone

---

Walker_ID posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

America is the only country that ever nuked anyone

---

simply not true...it can probably be said that the US is the only country to intentionally nuke another country.... but your statement is completely incorrect

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Walker_ID posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

America is the only country that ever nuked anyone

---

simply not true...it can probably be said that the US is the only country to intentionally nuke another country.... but your statement is completely incorrect

---

great story bro

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

How do you know that?

---

The only reason we didn't nuke Korea was that the soviets had the bomb by then.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Not so it can start a nuclear war in the ME.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Anyhow the point of the thread isn't really about whether nuking Japan was a good idea or not.

The point is that if you look at history as a guide you have every reason to want nuclear weapons as an insurance policy, especially if America doesn't like you. And especilaly when America has just spent 10 years invading countries on both sides of you.

The idea Iran wants nuclear weapons primarily to use on Israel is something only mouthbreathing American RWNs could come up with. I don't doubt Iran wants nuclear weapons but the obvious reason it wants them is so it can be sure America will never invade it and Israel will never bomb it. Not so it can start a nuclear war in the ME.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

Yes, and we went through 4 years of horrible island to island war beforehand. That's sorta an indication that the decision wasn't taken lightly, whether right or wrong in the end.

---

We didn't have the bomb for 4 years so that's a sorta poor argument. Only about a month passed between finishing the bomb and using it.

In fact we didn't have the bomb until Japan was already clearly beaten and not a threat to anyone any more. But we still used it anyhow. Not once, but twice, within 3 days.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

How do you know that?

---

The only reason we didn't nuke Korea was that the soviets had the bomb by then.

---

That is your opinion based on your view of America, not a fact, and does not answer my question.

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

Its about as good an argument as your assumption that only other countries development kept us from playing Missle Command across the entire planet. It's a completely ridiculous argument from biased thinking.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

MacArthur wanted to nuke Korea and China even though the Soviets DID have nukes. It is pretty obvious the main reason he didn't get his way was that the soviets had the bomb and were supporting the N. Koreans.

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

MacArthur wanted to nuke Korea and China even though the Soviets DID have nukes. It is pretty obvious the main reason he didn't get his way was that the soviets had the bomb and were supporting the N. Koreans.

---

It isn't obvious at all, it's another dumb assumption. Here's a hint: There were a lot of things that MacArthur, and Patton for that matter, wanted to do but were shot down on because they weren't very good ideas.

---

Yossarian_42 posted:

---

MacArthur didn't get his way because nobody agreed with him.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Yossarian_42 posted:

---

MacArthur didn't get his way because nobody agreed with him.

---

Except the joint chiefs of staff.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

In fact we didn't have the bomb until Japan was already clearly beaten and not a threat to anyone any more.

---

Koneg posted:

---

I'm sure the 65,000+ casualties suffered in the month prior to Teh Bomb being dropped are very glad to hear that they weren't actually casualties.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Koneg posted:

---

I'm sure the 65,000+ casualties suffered in the month prior to Teh Bomb being dropped are very glad to hear that they weren't actually casualties.

---

Fair enough. I should have said not a serious threat to America any more.

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

You left out the several 'ifs' to the agreement.

---

Koneg posted:

---

That was 65,000 American casualties you gawd damn revisionist wanna-be.

---

Mastara posted:

---

Religious people are not sane people


Opinion and disregarded as such. It is sad that you actually believe that. Then again, you also hold bigotry towards believers too. Like most here. Its 1 opinion vs another. And yours holds no more credibility than those of believers. Moving on.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Yuki, your opinions based on emotion are not facts

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

if americans are in harms way then we have the moral impetus to act. You can argue that americans shouldn't have been in korea but that's politics.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I heard someone in gov't say just in the last decade or so that EVERY military option was on the table when american servicemen hit the ground. And they were asked specifically about tactical nukes.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

In fact we didn't have the bomb until Japan was already clearly beaten and not a threat to anyone any more. But we still used it anyhow. Not once, but twice, within 3 days.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I heard someone in gov't say just in the last decade or so that EVERY military option was on the table when american servicemen hit the ground. And they were asked specifically about tactical nukes.

---

So your rebuttal is that we're still happy to use nukes? I'm not sure that really refutes the notion that every country has a perfectly logical reason to want nukes as an insurance policy against invasion. But ok.

The bolded bit is also kinda a Paulg move.

---

Babyboomers posted:

---

Hey dude, we didn't sell out, we bought in!

---

-Myk- posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

In fact we didn't have the bomb until Japan was already clearly beaten and not a threat to anyone any more. But we still used it anyhow. Not once, but twice, within 3 days.

---

liar Liar pants on fire

Battle of Okinawa
1 April – 21 June 1945The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War.
U.S. losses were over 62,000 casualties of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing. This made the battle the bloodiest that U.S. forces experienced in the Pacific war. Several thousand servicemen who died indirectly (from wounds and other causes) at a later date are not included in the total.

there are tons of sites with this info.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

But you seemed to be saying the official american position was we would never use nukes now.

I didn't read the thread

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

I do find it funny how many people here are adamant that America never would have nuked anyone else, though. Even though we were clearly prepared to three times in a war where our nation was never seriously in any danger.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

The estimate for invading Japan after looking at 1944 and 1945 came in around 1 million Americans dead.

It became a rather easy choice at that point.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

-Myk- posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

In fact we didn't have the bomb until Japan was already clearly beaten and not a threat to anyone any more. But we still used it anyhow. Not once, but twice, within 3 days.

---

liar Liar pants on fire

Battle of Okinawa
1 April – 21 June 1945The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War.
U.S. losses were over 62,000 casualties of whom over 12,500 were killed or missing. This made the battle the bloodiest that U.S. forces experienced in the Pacific war. Several thousand servicemen who died indirectly (from wounds and other causes) at a later date are not included in the total.

there are tons of sites with this info.

---

Uh. Are you retarded? The bomb wasn't ready until after the battle of okinawa. Which is where the remains of the japanese navy and airforce was definitively destroyed.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

But you seemed to be saying the official american position was we would never use nukes now.

I didn't read the thread

---

That's pretty obvious.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Nukes were very much on the list of "acceptable military weapons" right up until other countries got them. Then they got put on the "unacceptable" list except when used to respond to nukes themselves.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

The estimate for invading Japan after looking at 1944 and 1945 came in around 1 million Americans dead.

It became a rather easy choice at that point.

---

That's wrong (actual number was more like 65k), but the point of the thread really wasn't to get into that stuff. We've had that conversation here on the outpost before and nobody ever convinces anybody. This thread isn't about whether nuking Japan was justified. This thread is about America having demonstrated a willingness to nuke people in the past as long as they don't have nukes themselves.

---

Manegarm posted:

---

Americans are a brutish uneducated warlike people.. I mean savages basically.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It's funny how easily upset Americans get when people point out America is the only country that ever nuked anybody.

---

-Myk- posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Uh. Are you retarded? The bomb wasn't ready until after the battle of okinawa. Which is where the remains of the japanese navy and airforce was definitively destroyed.

---

You're an idiot

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It's funny how easily upset Americans get when people point out America is the only country that ever nuked anybody.

---

I'm glad we did it.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It's funny how easily upset Americans get when people point out America is the only country that ever nuked anybody.

---

I'm glad we did it.

---

Which is why everybody America doesn't like wants nukes themselves. It's the only way to be sure they won't end up on the wrong end of an American attack.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Kjarhall posted:

---

You left out the several 'ifs' to the agreement.

---

"Ifs" like "if the chinese use aircraft." What an if that is!

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It is absurd to think that use of nukes was off the table in Korea or that MacArthur was some lone crank and no one else thought nukes were justified.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

I do find it funny how many people here are adamant that America never would have nuked anyone else, though.

---

NuEM posted:

---

Manegarm posted:

---

Americans are a brutish uneducated warlike people.. I mean savages basically.

---

You forgot dumb.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It's funny how easily upset Americans get when people point out America is the only country that ever nuked anybody.

---

Walker_ID posted:

---

derpa derpa

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

derpa derpa

---

Walker_ID posted:

---

derp! it was a derp, not a derpa! you are totally wrong

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It was clear to everyone in the thread but you we were talking about deliberate use of nuclear weapons against an enemy. Of all the things to quibble about, that has to be the dumbest.

---

Walker_ID posted:

---

I saw a mexican nuke a burrito in juarez once, therefore your statement is wrong!

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It's funny how easily upset Americans get when people point out America is the only country that ever nuked anybody.

---

Mastara posted:

---

Yes I am a fundie.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

Americans say we would never nuke anyone except japan

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

Americans were fine with countries using nukes until other countries got them

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

the only reason we didn't use nukes is because other people had them

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Nuclear weapons didn't become something that was unacceptable to use until other people got them.

---

Clackdor posted:

---

Yuki, your conclusion is one of many that fit the available facts.

For example, consider the fact that nobody knew how devastating the effects of atomic radiation actually were. You can just as validly say that the US didn't drop any more bombs because they decided after that nobody else since deserved that kind of torture.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Nuclear weapons didn't become something that was unacceptable to use until other people got them.

---

I also think there is something wrong with that statement. I'll let the author defend it.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Yeah we've been over that. As far as I can tell, you think I'm wrong and that nuclear weapons are still considered acceptable to use.

That's just a disagreement, not a straw man.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

The estimate for invading Japan after looking at 1944 and 1945 came in around 1 million Americans dead.

It became a rather easy choice at that point.

---

That's wrong (actual number was more like 65k),

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Clackdor posted:

---

Yuki, your conclusion is one of many that fit the available facts.

For example, consider the fact that nobody knew how devastating the effects of atomic radiation actually were. You can just as validly say that the US didn't drop any more bombs because they decided after that nobody else since deserved that kind of torture.

---

Well, if there was any documentary evidence to support it. But there isn't as far as I know. The U.S. government knew all about radiation sickness from atomic bombs by 1950 when we were in Korea. But as we've all established here we were seriously considering using the bomb in Korea.

---

Koneg posted:

---

How could estimates for the whole of mainland Japan be lower than the casualties from just the Battle of Okinawa!??

---

Clackdor posted:

---

We didn't use it because 1) it was a different kind of war where strategic bombing did not play a role. Remember there were no tactical nukes. And 2) there was hesitation because of the devastation caused by the bombs in WWII. The Chinese and North Koreans had not immorally attacked us and there was not millions of lives at stake that would be lost if we chose a conventional method of ending the war.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Yuki, your opinions based on emotion are not facts

---

The joint chiefs of staff and/or truman authorized nukes in korea on three occasions. Despite the korean war never being a conflict where there was any real risk to america itself.

The idea that America wouldn't have nuked somebody in the last 60 years without the threat of soviet counter-nukes is absurd.

If you want to continue to say "no u!" based on your emotional reaction feel free. But I don't think "you're just being emotional!" is all that effective a response when your own argument is "america wouldn't do that! because! even though we almost did!"

---

Rosaria posted:

---

I never said "no u", but you did. I also never said America wouldn't do that I said your argument is ridiculous and emotionally-driven.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Incidentally, almost certainly more Americans died in Korea than would have died in a nuclear-free end to WWII.

---

GrymmDAOC posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Incidentally, almost certainly more Americans died in Korea than would have died in a nuclear-free end to WWII.

---

So basically you are claiming that the the war in Japan would have been less costly than the Italian campaign? Bull. It took *2* Nuclear weapons for Japan to decide to call it quits. The battle of Berlin cost over a million casualties, And I cannot believe the Japanese would fight for their homeland any less tenaciously than the Germans.

The Japanese campaign would have been a brutal bloodbath.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

If America haddn't had nukes it would have just accepted a single-condition surrender

---

Japan did not surrender long past the point they should have.

We repeatedly warned them that we were going to drop the world's most destructive explosive device if they didn't.

Japan still refused to surrender.

We dropped the world's most destructive explosive device.

We demanded their surrender.

Japan still refused to surrender.

We warned them we would drop the world's most destructive explosive device again if they didn't surrender.

Japan still refused to surrender.

We dropped the world's most destructive explosive device. Again.

Japan finally got their heads out of their asses and surrendered like they should have 6 months earlier.

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Which is why they never actually drew up detailed plans or did real estimates.

---

Koneg posted:

---

bunch of random arghelbgrahle

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

AFAIK there never were detailed plans drawn up.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

They had a plan for a limited landing in southern kyushu (which is where the 65k number comes from), but that's it.

---

Clackdor posted:

---

Yuki, I wonder where you get your history.

Everything you say about the end of WWII is wrong.

---

Koneg posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

AFAIK there never were detailed plans drawn up.

---

You FAIK... wrong.

http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf
Operation Downfall, 28 May 1945

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

I didn't see any casualty estimates but I'm pretty sure the estimate for Kyushu was about 65k.

---

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[10] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[41]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[42]

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[43] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125 a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[45]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[46] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[47] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[47] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[48] and troop transports off Kyushu would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[49]

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[50] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[50]

Koneg posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

I didn't see any casualty estimates but I'm pretty sure the estimate for Kyushu was about 65k.

---

Which completely explains why, as pointed out, they went out and bought 500,000 Purple Hearts to get ready for it?

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

The low ball was 105,000 casualties and that was deduced by men returning to combat.



You were saying?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

If Koneg's document is really the best they had they hadn't even decided on anything but a couple sentence-long basic plan. It's hard to make good estimates when you don't even know what you are planning on doing in concrete terms beyond "attack san francisco and then L.A.".

---

posted:

---

Operation Downfall was the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of World War II. The planned operation was abandoned when Japan surrendered after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan. The operation had two parts: Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyushu, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a staging area. Later, in spring 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned invasion of the Kanto Plain, near Tokyo, on the Japanese island of Honshu. Airbases on Kyushu captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based air support for Operation Coronet.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

... a wall of un-related text .....You were saying?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Invasion wasn't necessary.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

You're like 30 posts behind the thread. Your numbers are wrong, and that wasn't the actual choice. So pretty much 0/3.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

We didn't have the bomb for 4 years so that's a sorta poor argument. Only about a month passed between finishing the bomb and using it.

In fact we didn't have the bomb until Japan was already clearly beaten and not a threat to anyone any more. But we still used it anyhow. Not once, but twice, within 3 days.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Koneg posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

AFAIK there never were detailed plans drawn up.

---

You FAIK... wrong.

http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwii/marine1/1239.pdf
Operation Downfall, 28 May 1945

---

A 20 page report? From before the battle of okinawa? That's your detailed plans? Seriously? There's less than a page on actual invasion plans. I have trouble believing D-day or the invasion of okinawa was coordinated based on one small map and a few sentences of what they actually planned to do. "Take kagoshima wan and ariake wan" is about like saying your invasion plan for America is "capture san francisco and L.A."

Incidentally, the report mentions the invasion of southern kyushu I was talking about, as well as a later invasion of tokyo, but that's it. I didn't know they had also planned the tokyo bit, which is interesting. I didn't see any casualty estimates but I'm pretty sure the estimate for Kyushu was about 65k.

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

Nuking Japan was a war crime

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

They thought we had way more bombs and they could clearly see they were defeated.

They wanted an honorable way out. Because of the experiences in World War 1 the Allies decided that unconditional surrender was the only option. This was pushed by FDR

Its a shame FDR didnt live longer.

---

bstulic posted:

---

I really don't get it...why they surrendered after two bombs?

---

NuEM posted:

---

The first country to develop nukes used them the very moment they were available and stopped using them as soon as other countries had them, too. Fact.

---

cabbyman posted:

---

We didn't have to nuke Japan.

We got to!

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

If you walk into conversations halfway through in real life too and then start whining at people because you didn't understand the context you probably think people are tiresome in real life too.

I honestly am not really sure what you're angry about so if I'm mischaracterizing your position I'm sorry because I don't really understand it in the first place.

This thread was supposed to be about it making complete sense for countries America doesn't like to want nukes as an insurance policy, because America has historically demonstrated a willingness to use nukes against those without nukes, and an unwillingness to invade people who do have nukes.

You wandered in halfway through and started blathering about Japan. Which seems kinda odd.

---

Thugoneous posted:

---

I think Yuki hates his American half and thinks if we didn't drop the nukes his blood would be pure.

---