Usefulness (or otherwise) of Nuclear weapons

[RanulfC]

I bet nobody in Japan knew what had happened.

You'd bet wrong then. The Japanese weren't simpletons.

The Japanese military and government had wide ranging reports from sources around Hiroshima, and sent official observers to the city soon after the bombing to asses what had happened.

They pretty much knew "what happened" within 24 hours but the majority didn't believe it was caused by a single bomb from one plane. However by the 8th of August (two days after the bombing) Radio Tokyo was admitting that the city of Hiroshima was destroyed and giving statements as to the extent of the devastation. The government was still holding out for negotiated/conditional surrender.

since the whole city was blown away and all communications

If that is true then it just proves that yes, the Americans were using a weapon that could wipe out a whole city. So:

Option A. The city is nearly annihilated and word is passed of what happened or

Option B. The city is completely gone including communications, which says the exact same thing without need for words.

The US was not trying to "keep it a secret" they wanted Japan to know what was coming. They wanted Japan to see what had come. And then they told Japan it would happen again if they didn't surrender.

And they didn't surrender, it took the second bomb to convince them they didn't stand a chance of "making-a-stand" as was planned under those conditions.

On December 7th 1941 Japan initiated a sneak attack that would lead to atomic destruction on their homeland. Imperial Japan is not a victim-- they allied Nazi Germany and went to war with the free world.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Well, hindsight shows they did TRY to declare war prior to the attack. Yamamoto and others in the Navy had insisted on the need to declare war and NOT attack without it. Bad timing and trying to shave things to close was the downfall to that plan and as Yamamoto understood, (but not the majority of the military brass and government) the appearance of it being a "dirty-sneak-attack" caused Americans to solidly get behind the war.

Randy

 

[topspeed3]

I bet nobody in Japan knew what had happened.

You'd bet wrong then. The Japanese weren't simpletons.

The Japanese military and government had wide ranging reports from sources around Hiroshima, and sent official observers to the city soon after the bombing to asses what had happened.

They pretty much knew "what happened" within 24 hours but the majority didn't believe it was caused by a single bomb from one plane. However by the 8th of August (two days after the bombing) Radio Tokyo was admitting that the city of Hiroshima was destroyed and giving statements as to the extent of the devastation. The government was still holding out for negotiated/conditional surrender.

since the whole city was blown away and all communications

If that is true then it just proves that yes, the Americans were using a weapon that could wipe out a whole city. So:

Option A. The city is nearly annihilated and word is passed of what happened or

Option B. The city is completely gone including communications, which says the exact same thing without need for words.

The US was not trying to "keep it a secret" they wanted Japan to know what was coming. They wanted Japan to see what had come. And then they told Japan it would happen again if they didn't surrender.

And they didn't surrender, it took the second bomb to convince them they didn't stand a chance of "making-a-stand" as was planned under those conditions.

On December 7th 1941 Japan initiated a sneak attack that would lead to atomic destruction on their homeland. Imperial Japan is not a victim-- they allied Nazi Germany and went to war with the free world.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Well, hindsight shows they did TRY to declare war prior to the attack. Yamamoto and others in the Navy had insisted on the need to declare war and NOT attack without it. Bad timing and trying to shave things to close was the downfall to that plan and as Yamamoto understood, (but not the majority of the military brass and government) the appearance of it being a "dirty-sneak-attack" caused Americans to solidly get behind the war.

Randy

I did not hint that japanese are simpletons, but I recall reading a book about this ( from the japanese point ) and I got the impression that the info between Hiroshima and Tokyo and back was disconnected for days. Someone certainly from distance saw the cloud and had a phone..but before a team of radiation experts ( which there was none ) or officials with any kinda authority to confirm the happening reached there and back to Tokyo to inform about it took more time than 2 days.
Hiroshiman and Nagasaki are pretty much in the other end of the island. I bet they also figured that US was bluffing...and it was just considered first as a regular bombing.

http://i.infoplease.com/images/mjapan.gif

No one is accusing USA for being trigger happy...but I assume this is how it went...and US officials had no way knowing it of course...and dropped another bomb ( unfortunately for the people of Nagasaki ).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Nuclear weapons will always be an option providing that the perception for not using them could mean worse.

Japan was not going to have a happy ending. (continued) Massive bombing, atomic weapons, Full scale invasion, starvation/disease. Given all the options there, the Atom bomb was the fastest with the fewest losses for all concerned.

I thought the Starvation option was the worst because:

Japanese military/imperial forces would get the rations first, leaving a disproportionate number of civilians to die.

It could stretch years and years and lead to cannibalism.

Depending on when the Japanese Surrendered there could still be more casualties as disease and starvation could not be reversed and more perished. (much like the radiation from the A bombs but worse, affecting millions more)

It might wipe out the Japanese as a people, its an island, surrounding and starving it into oblivion with little chance of epidemic spreading elsewhere is not a difficult task.

Its purely anecdotal but I was told by a WWII vet that after liberating the Concentration Camps in Europe and German surrender, he hoped they fire bombed japan into ash-- he had simply reached his limit. A lot of people had.

I'm amazed that after 6 years of horrific warfare there was actually a weapon that could still reach numbed sensibilities in such a way that plan A: millions more dying for the next two years could be abandoned in favor of surrender. Atom bombs seemed to get the attention of the Japanese government in way that firestorms and 90,000 dead in one night, and national suicide on the horizon, never could.

 

[Triton]

What about the Kyūjō Incident on the night of August 14-15, 1945 in which a coup d'état was put into effect by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and by many from the Imperial Guard of Japan in order to stop the move to surrender. Some officers in the Imperial Japanese Army vowed to fight on to the death even after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they planned to place Emperor Hirohito under arrest to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. If the Minister of the War of Japan Korechika Anami had supported the coup, the history of World War II would have been different and the use of two atomic bombs would not have ended the war with the Empire of Japan!

For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

No one is accusing USA for being trigger happy...but I assume this is how it went...and US officials had no way knowing it of course...and dropped another bomb ( unfortunately for the people of Nagasaki ).

I don't mean to sound old fashioned or anything, but this was kind of a critical point in world history and more than a few people have looked into it, and I bet if you researched instead of trying to assume -- you might find answers instead of speculation. "flash burns" were a big indicator that this was different, along with shadows burned into walls. Japan quickly noticed that things were different than regular bombings. The Japanese knew, and we knew that they knew. We didn't drop the bombs back to back, we gave them enough time to properly assess what happened, and then said we would do it again if they didn't give up.

What about the Kyūjō Incident on the night of August 14-15, 1945 in which a coup d'état was put into effect by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and by many from the Imperial Guard of Japan in order to stop the move to surrender. Some officers in the Imperial Japanese Army vowed to fight on to the death even after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The Japanese military would have rather died than surrender, regardless of its effect on civilians? shocking.

and they planned to place Emperor Hirohito under arrest to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. If the Minister of the War of Japan Korechika Anami had supported the coup, the history of World War II would have been different and the use of two atomic bombs would not have ended the war with the Empire of Japan!

And if they had surrendered there would be no need to drop atom bombs in the first place, also meaning the atom bomb would not have ended the war. The what if game is my favorite.

 

[Triton]

There is an interesting dramatization of the event in the 1967 film "Japan's Longest Day":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062041/

 

[Triton]

And if they had surrendered there would be no need to drop atom bombs in the first place, also meaning the atom bomb would not have ended the war. The what if game is my favorite.

People seem to presume that the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima caused the Imperial Japanese Army to immediately capitulate, not aware that elements within the army had vowed to fight to the death and continue the war rather than accept the unconditional surrender of the Potsdam Declaration.

They also forget the firebombing campaign conducted against 67 Japanese cities by the USAAF under the command of General Curtis LeMay.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

People seem to presume that the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima caused the Imperial Japanese Army to immediately capitulate,

when in reality it took a whole five extra days, and according to the wiki you posted, didn't derail or delay the surrender one damn bit. So I guess its your definition of "immediately" for the government it was 24 hours, for the army 96 (well not the whole army, but elements). which after 4 years of war is pretty immediate for me.

So your argument is that a small portion of soldiers, unrepresentative of the IJA vowed to fight on, partook in a failed coup, and then killed themselves and everything went as planned anyway, with that IJA calling it quits like everyone else; means the army had not given up. I had no idea the Imperial army was multifaceted and democratic that it took unanimous decisions by all involved, rather than the official orders of those in charge to surrender. I learned something today.

so elements in the army had one last desperate gamble to make it and they made it and the next day the war was over anyway.

not aware that elements within the army had vowed to fight to the death and continue the war rather than accept the unconditional surrender of the Potsdam Declaration.

Too bad the decision wasn't up to the army. I am perfectly aware that elements within the army are not the army as well. They are elements of it. Armies are famously top down organizations, and often what a few people think or is this case do against orders, really doesn't change official policy.

It really doesn't matter but ok:

the army decided to surrender four days later than when government decided to surrender before everyone officially surrendered on the same day anyway.


I'll agree with you-- the Imperial army just like japan never officially gave up -- right up to the day it officially surrendered. They were officially still at war up until then. Whether they spent that time drinking, smoking, fighting, chasing girls, or launching coups really doesn't matter to me, as five days later (again your definition of immediate, and mine may differ) the war was over. end result is the same, surrender due to atom bombs. tamoto patoto

 

[chuck4]

The atom bomb snapped Japan out of a plan for national suicide.

No, there never was an intention to commit national suicide. There was only the dillusion that since the terms offered by the Allied couldn't possibly get any worse, procrastination could only afford some chance of making them better. What snapped them out of this dillusion wasn't the atomic bomb. It was the realization that the Soviets weren't going to mediate a negotiated peace, but were instead going to follow through with Yalta commitment and come in for a slice of Japan.

 

[chuck4]

And if they had surrendered there would be no need to drop atom bombs in the first place, also meaning the atom bomb would not have ended the war. The what if game is my favorite.

People seem to presume that the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima caused the Imperial Japanese Army to immediately capitulate, not aware that elements within the army had vowed to fight to the death and continue the war rather than accept the unconditional surrender of the Potsdam Declaration.

They also forget the firebombing campaign conducted against 67 Japanese cities by the USAAF under the command of General Curtis LeMay.

It really wasn't the bomb. The movement towards capitulation was geathering pace before the bomb. Soviet refusal to mediate a ceasefire with the the US was a major trigger, soviet decaration of war an even more important one.

Japan didn't really want her self partitioned between the US and USSR, and the threat that half of Japan might end up under Soviet rule was a greater inducement than the American bomb.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

.

 

[Orionblamblam]

They had several days to surrender between the 1st and 2nd. They didn't.

More to the point, the Japanese had had several *years* to surrender, starting on December 8, 1941. When the Japanese people didn't haul that genetic defective Hirohito out of his palace and string him up like Mussolini, they gave up all rights to complain about how they were being treated by the US.

 

[sferrin]

They had several days to surrender between the 1st and 2nd. They didn't.

More to the point, the Japanese had had several *years* to surrender, starting on December 8, 1941. When the Japanese people didn't haul that genetic defective Hirohito out of his palace and string him up like Mussolini, they gave up all rights to complain about how they were being treated by the US.

Yeah, I was referring to the poster's comment, "why not just drop one and then tell them to surrender".

 

[topspeed3]

They had several days to surrender between the 1st and 2nd. They didn't.

More to the point, the Japanese had had several *years* to surrender, starting on December 8, 1941. When the Japanese people didn't haul that genetic defective Hirohito out of his palace and string him up like Mussolini, they gave up all rights to complain about how they were being treated by the US.

I tought it was the Tojo that runned the show and emperor was just a puppet at the background ( more or less ).

 

[topspeed3]

No one is accusing USA for being trigger happy...but I assume this is how it went...and US officials had no way knowing it of course...and dropped another bomb ( unfortunately for the people of Nagasaki ).

I don't mean to sound old fashioned or anything, but this was kind of a critical point in world history and more than a few people have looked into it, and I bet if you researched instead of trying to assume -- you might find answers instead of speculation. "flash burns" were a big indicator that this was different, along with shadows burned into walls. Japan quickly noticed that things were different than regular bombings. The Japanese knew, and we knew that they knew. We didn't drop the bombs back to back, we gave them enough time to properly assess what happened, and then said we would do it again if they didn't give up.

I meant this is how the japanese see it happened...they might be right because they were there.
So you think the flash burns were immediately found in amongst the radiating and burning debris that had just few moments before been heated up to + 7000 C. The japanese convoy immediately despite burning corpses and possibly 300 C heat just drove to the epicenter of the blast and took photos and said..that it an atomic bomb..even though they had no idea that such a device even existed and had no idea what is does and how it works ?

 

[RanulfC]

There is an interesting dramatization of the event in the 1967 film "Japan's Longest Day":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062041/

Also looking damn good is "Emperor" which deals with MacAurthur and initial turn-over after the Surrender.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/movies/emperor-starring-tommy-lee-jones-as-gen-douglas-macarthur.html?_r=0

Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgf0DeDN5D0

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

They had several days to surrender between the 1st and 2nd. They didn't.

More to the point, the Japanese had had several *years* to surrender, starting on December 8, 1941. When the Japanese people didn't haul that genetic defective Hirohito out of his palace and string him up like Mussolini, they gave up all rights to complain about how they were being treated by the US.

Ya right OBB, how many nations that are WINNING have suddenly decided to surrender? (Edit: Teach me to not try and remember my history and post but that I should actually read it again and then post )

The Japanese never actually thought they would WIN the war at all, they "assumed" that they would be able to force the Allies into a negotiated settlement through early superiority. They would then negotiate to keep at least some of the captured territory. But between Pearl Harbor and evidence of their treatment of POWs, Civilians, and Natives IN those territories the Allies rejected any negotiated settlement and instead started closing the gap and winning battles. You would think that would have been a clue that the idea of negotiated settlement was out the window but even after several declerations that stipulated an unconditional surrender by Japan part of the military and government were trying to get multiple condtions attached to any surrender. (End edit)

As for the Japanese people doing anything to Hirohito that was impossible. The position of the Emperor had been revered and enshrined for hundreds of years, no matter who was "really" in charge to the Japanese people he was untouchable. That in fact was one of the biggest sticking points on surrender. The Japanese government and military had been considering surrender for while, though the military wanted to hold out for conditions (retention of mainland territories, disarmament and war crimes handled by Japanese Military High Command, limited or no occupation, etc) while the government peace faction was willing to settle for a lot fewer conditions or just accepting the Allied terms. The problem was both side agreed that the ONE condition that would be required was that the status and person of the Emperor be upheld. Meanwhile the wording of the surrender demands left the Emperor's status unclear and no one could get a better definition through diplomatic channels.

The new movie I mentioned above is going to go into that whole situation.

I tought it was the Tojo that runned the show and emperor was just a puppet at the background ( more or less ).

The political situation was highly complicated. At that level if the Emperor made a decision that was politically unaccetable with a majority of his ministers, he might suddenly find that he had died of unspecified causes. The military and government would of course defer to any request or order he made, but on the other hand he was also supposed to be "protected" from making decisions that would reflect badly on him. While he had military rank and power, (he led a unit of troops in the suppression of rebellion by a group of Junior officers in 1936. (How much actual "leading" was involved is speculative as he might of had the training but not the "experiance") The fact that the military (Army and Navy) had been intergrated into the top government positions in the 30s made political decisions especially difficult. The civilian portion of the government had effectivly lost control of the Military by 1932 and the military was activily supressing any opposition, or moderation attempts.

In truth despite his grandfather "restoring" Imperial power into the Emperor, the whole royal family was still heavily isolated from the majority of Japanese citizens and there was no direct way for him to communicate with them or them with him. Everthing went through his councilers and the majority of them were militar officers. (And from what I can gather he was normally only "represented" in council and only present for specific matters where his approval or denial was required)

Given the political environment its pretty easy to see that while he was probably consulted and approved operations in general it would not have been prudent on his part to get deeply involved. Its pretty clear that Tojo was blamed in order to prevent any questioning of the Emperor's role in WWII. That could end with putting the Emperor on trial and possibly hanging him. EVERYONE from the President down to and below MacArthur KNEW that would be a really bad idea. Any threat to the Emperor and every Japanese, civilian or military would turn on the occupation forces. Tojo was deeply devoted to the Emperor and was part of the faction that wanted to agree to surrender as long as the Emperor status was continued. Once the Emperor made a decision Tojo fully supported and did his best to carry out the orders.
(This is pretty much why the various coups trying to nullify the surrender failed. The majority of the military accepted the Emperor's orders, as did the average citizen no matter their personal feelings. On the converese side the situation of the Emperor being so cut off from the majority of people is also what made the coup attempts possible in that people were used to obeying "orders" given in his name even if they were not actually his.)

He was still "THE" Emperor though and when he made a decision for the majority of the government (military included) that was the final word on the matter. But because he was realist enough to know and understand that there was going to be opposition and that coup COULD work, given the right circumstances and support he made the unprecedented decision to record his order of surrender and have it broadcast to all Japan. (And the Allies even though the "official" word went through the Swiss consulate)

That was to ensure that even if he was "taken" into protective custody or isolated in the palace the surrender would still go out. In the end it was his decision that led to the surrender.

Randy

 

[sferrin]

I still can't manage to find any tears. In the end, if Japan didn't want to get nuked they shouldn't have started a war with us.

 

[Arjen]

I still can't manage to find any tears. In the end, if Japan didn't want to get nuked they shouldn't have started a war with us.

The people who decide to start a war, the people who die during that same war are not always the same people, not even if they are from the same country. Innocents are killed along with the guilty - at best, a necessary evil. A tragedy - always.

 

[RanulfC]

I meant this is how the japanese see it happened...they might be right because they were there.
So you think the flash burns were immediately found in amongst the radiating and burning debris that had just few moments before been heated up to + 7000 C. The japanese convoy immediately despite burning corpses and possibly 300 C heat just drove to the epicenter of the blast and took photos and said..that it an atomic bomb..even though they had no idea that such a device even existed and had no idea what is does and how it works ?

There were witness in surrounding villages and towns as well as survivors in Hiroshima as well. Reports had been coming in to Military HQ of a huge explosion in Hiroshima and great devistation. The Military didn't believe them at first but they had an aircraft over the city within hours and a reliable report of the destruction. They organized and sent in relief and aid immediatly.

By the 8th of August they had all the information gathered along with the US leaflets stating what had happened and that it would happen again if no surrender was given. The majority opinion (military) was that it was some freak accident and that the atom bomb did not exist. On August 9th the Soviet Union declared war and invaded Japanese terretory on the Mainland.

The government was STILL silent and made no attempts to offer a surrender, and that same day the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. (Lucky Kokura which had been the primary target with Nagasaki as secondary. Had weather been bad over Hiroshima the first time then the secondary target was Kokura with Nagasaki as an alternate) After that bomb one of the Generals on the council remarked that the US could have as many as a "hundred" of these bombs and there was nothing Japan could do to stop them. (Strangely enough that number of bombs was obtained during the torture of an American B-29 pilot who was lying to stop the torture)

Japan knew in theory how an atomic bomb could work, they had all the research data from Germany along with their own programs which was started far too late. Even with all they knew it still took them another 5 days to officially surrender.

The Emperor had told his foreign minister to relay to the Allies on August 10th that Japan would insist on only ONE condition for surrender in that it "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler" which again shows how important they considered the matter. The Allied response reafirmed that the rule of the Emperor would be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers was recieved on 12 August and was debated by the Council. The Allied message was less than they'd hoped and the council remained deadlocked in debate. With no reply recieved from Japan by the 13th the US attacked Japan again, this time with conventional weapons. The US Third fleet began shelling the Japanese coast while the USAAF used over 700 B-29s in both day and night raids. (Note: Had we HAD another atomic bomb at this point the primary target would have been Tokyo according to Truman)
The Emperor put his foot down on the 14th and the council agreed, he recorded his surrender to be broadcast the next day on the 15th.

The official ceremony for the Surrender and begining of the occupation was September 2nd, and the rest is history....
(Interestingly there is a record that during a meeting in late September between Hirohito and MacArthur Hirohito offered as the "ultimate" authority of the Japanese government to take all the blame for War Crimes upon himself, but MacArthur rejected the offer.)

Randy

 

[sferrin]

I still can't manage to find any tears. In the end, if Japan didn't want to get nuked they shouldn't have started a war with us.

The people who decide to start a war, the people who die during that same war are not always the same people, not even if they are from the same country. Innocents are killed along with the guilty - at best, a necessary evil. A tragedy - always.

Still can't find any. Sorry.

 

[chuck4]

They had several days to surrender between the 1st and 2nd. They didn't.

More to the point, the Japanese had had several *years* to surrender, starting on December 8, 1941. When the Japanese people didn't haul that genetic defective Hirohito out of his palace and string him up like Mussolini, they gave up all rights to complain about how they were being treated by the US.

I tought it was the Tojo that runned the show and emperor was just a puppet at the background ( more or less ).

The Emperor was a puppet with prestige. In general, it was very bad form for any individual or fraction in pre-war Japan to be publically seen clearly acting against the expressed wishes of the emperor. At the same time, it was dangerous to the personal freedom and even safety of the the emperor to publically express wishes that are contrary to the wishes of such powerful fractions as the army. So a charade goes on where everyone goes about showing great deference to the opinion of the emperor, in return the emperor takes care not to express opinion contrary to the wishes of powerful people.

The emperor could gain some momentary influence by suddenly expressing opinions and wishes opposite to the desires of the army, and it would inconvenience and embarasse the army for a few days. But the army would simply quitely put the emperor under house arrest after a few days and then return to its old course. So in the long run, the emperor had the power to throw one or two speed bumps in the path of the war fraction. But he had no power to change the course of the country. So the emperor elected to hold his prestige in reserve instead of throwing it away ineffectually at the beginning of the pacific war.

When Japan finally decided to surrender, it wasn't so much that the emperor put his foot down. The emperor's foot would make no lasting difference if the army was deadset against it. What the emperor did was to provide the army with cover for doing something the army understood had to be done but which would have seriously embarassed the army if it had done it without the public support of the emperor.

The charade of emperor and his subject is just a facet of how broken and disfunctional the entire Japanese political system was before and during WWII. The appearent suicidal dedication of Japanese fighting men merely masks a cesspool of fratracidal infighting at the very top. Rather than having a uniform high command acting in the interest of Japan, the army and Navy actively tried to undermine and each other behind the scene throughout the war to the point of outright sabotage. When IJN suffered it's defeat at Midway, the army high command actually privately celebrated the event because it cuts the navy down in size. When the army minister and navy minister attend cabinet meetings in the presence of the emperor, it is not uncommon for one to literally quitely kick the chair out from under the other when the other rises to speak. Visualiz the navy minister bowing to the emperor after delivering a report, trying to sit down, and falling on his ass because the army minister has kicked out his chair. This is a more realistic image of what is actually going on in Japanese high command than that of suicidal samuri ready to slit open their bellies for the honor of the emperor.

 

[topspeed3]

Yes definitely the emporor had the prestige...I did not mean to downgrade the Hirohito.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ya right OBB, how many nations that are WINNING have suddenly decided to surrender?

At no point was Japan winning. The closest they came to "winning" was *before* they launched the attack on Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, Imperial Japan might have been able to work out a workable solution that did not require that many of their cities go up in flames.

As for the Japanese people doing anything to Hirohito that was impossible.

Hogwash. The Russians showed that turning royalty into dogfood was emminantly doable, just a few decades earlier, the French a century earlier.

In truth despite his grandfather "restoring" Imperial power into the Emperor, the whole royal family was still heavily isolated from the majority of Japanese citizens and there was no direct way for him to communicate with them or them with him.

A bullet is all the communications from the masses that an emperor needs.

Any threat to the Emperor and every Japanese, civilian or military would turn on the occupation forces.

Kzinti.

In the end, while Hirohito was sadly neither jailed nor executed, his status of "god" was taken away. Here we have a case where the conquering American forces successfully committed theocide, which surely is more impressive than whacking one human guy... and the Japanese *didn't* go all jihadi bugnuts. So going that one extra step of tossing the whole institution of Emperor onto the trashheap doesn't seem like it would have turning the Japanese into slavering unstoppable monsters.

 

[chuck4]

Between Dec 1941 and June 1942 it was both the popular and the elite preception in Japan that the Axis was winning, and Japan was making major progress towards a favorable peace. You don't surrender when you perceive yourself to be on your way towards coming out of this well ahead of where you were going in. Even after Midway, the notion that Japan can't improve her bargaining position by trying to draw more allied blood wouldn't not have been prevelent until after the defeat at Leyte Gulf.

The comparison between the emperor of Japan, the Czar of Russia and King of France was obsurd. The emperor of Japan at no time in its history was a real national ruler, much less an absolutist tyrant. The emperor does not rule. The pervailing power that be in Japan at the moment, be it the Shogun, the cabinet, Diet, the Army, ruled, and ruled only in a small part through the emperor. The emperor of Japan was in many ways more comparable to symbol of the nation like uncle sam of US or Marianne of France than a real flesh and blood part of policy making establishment. At no point would it seem to most Japanese to be appropriate to depose the emperor even if they did think it appropriate to sue for the best terms they can. In fact, they would probably have done it in the name of the emperor rather than doing it by deposing the emperor. TIn the mind of most Japanese tje emperor could simply do no wrong. But in reality what exactly is right and wrong is for the power that be to decide.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Between Dec 1941 and June 1942 it was both the popular and the elite preception in Japan that the Axis was winning,

Doesn't matter. Someone might chuck himself off the rim of the Grand Canyon and think that flapping his arms means he's flying, but he is in fact a dead man. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was suicidal; it was just a matter of time.

The emperor of Japan was in many ways more comparable to symbol of the nation ...

Even better reason for Hirohito to have experienced a cell or a noose. Notice how you can get *arrested* for displaying the symbol of Nazi Germany?

TIn the mind of most Japanese tje emperor could simply do no wrong. But in reality what exactly is right and wrong is for the power that be to decide.

Another good reason. Newsreels showing Hirohito being frogmarched in chains to a military tribunal, film and audio of him admitting his nations guilt for the Rape of Nanking (among many others), displaying shame for not only his own actions (or lack thereof) but also for his peoples intellectual and moral failings in accepting Hirohito and the ideological nonsense that led Japan to try to take over half the world would have gone far in destroying the myth of the god-emperor.

 

[topspeed3]

Another good reason. Newsreels showing Hirohito being frogmarched in chains to a military tribunal, film and audio of him admitting his nations guilt for the Rape of Nanking (among many others), displaying shame for not only his own actions (or lack thereof) but also for his peoples intellectual and moral failings in accepting Hirohito and the ideological nonsense that led Japan to try to take over half the world would have gone far in destroying the myth of the god-emperor.

Japanese also lost 450 000 men in China..albeit Nanking was a massacre.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Japanese also lost 450 000 men in China..albeit Nanking was a massacre.

Kinda irrelevant. If someone gets an arm shot off while comitting an attempted murder, the fact that he suffered losses does not reduce the subsequent prison sentence. At best, it gives the fellow prisoners something to laugh at him about.

So Japan lost a bunch of soldiers in China. Those soliders would not have been lost had they not been *sent* to China. If, instead, those 450,000 men had turned their guns on the military and Imperial leaders, Japan would have been far better off.

 

[Bill Walker]

Japanese also lost 450 000 men in China..albeit Nanking was a massacre.

China is big and populous, and the Second World War lasted longer there than anywhere. I think the 19,000,000+ Chinese who died as a result of Japan's actions in China deserve a mention in this thread.

 

[topspeed3]

Japanese also lost 450 000 men in China..albeit Nanking was a massacre.

China is big and populous, and the Second World War lasted longer there than anywhere. I think the 19,000,000+ Chinese who died as a result of Japan's actions in China deserve a mention in this thread.

I had no idea 19 000 000 chinese were lost....in trying to put Chinas emperor Pu Yi back to power. I think I ought to study that conflict deeper.

 

[Arjen]

I recommend 'The Pacific War 1931-1945' by Saburo Ienaga for the events in Japan.

 

[chuck4]

Japanese also lost 450 000 men in China..albeit Nanking was a massacre.

China is big and populous, and the Second World War lasted longer there than anywhere. I think the 19,000,000+ Chinese who died as a result of Japan's actions in China deserve a mention in this thread.

I had no idea 19 000 000 chinese were lost....in trying to put Chinas emperor Pu Yi back to power. I think I ought to study that conflict deeper.

They id not try to put Pu Yi back in power over china. Instead, they tried to use Pu Yi to give a veneer of legitamcy to their unilateral of northern china prior to the outbreak of general war between china and Japan in 1937 by claiming northern china is really a separate country called manchuko, whose emperor was pu yi. They then prevailed upon Pu Yi to sign decrees to invite the Japanese army to enter Manchuko to protect its fictional independence, thereby giving themselves what they conceive to be a legal basis for occupation of northern china.


The total Chinese toll between 1937 and 1945 was very high. Nanking massacre wasn't the only one of its kind. There were many others as the Japanese tried to subjugate Chinese hinterland. What made Nanking special was its brazenness. Instead of being in hinterlands, the Nanking massacre occurred in the Chinese capital, in the full view of foreign embassies and legations. Just how many Chinese died directly as result of Japanese action is hard to say exactly because the country was embroiled in a multi-way civil war at the same time, there was general failure and fragmentation of internal transportation and distribution system, decay of flood control infrastructure, and these was also the instance when the nationalist government intentionally destroyed the dikes on yellow river to create artificial flood sto block Japanese advancement, an act which in itself may have killed 2 million Chinese through flooding and famine that resulted.

 

[sublight_]

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/nuclear-launch-officers/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Which begs the question, how many people in the United States are authorized to launch nuclear weapons?

 

[sferrin]

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/nuclear-launch-officers/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Which begs the question, how many people in the United States are authorized to launch nuclear weapons?

I think you might have the wrong impression. These guys couldn't just go in an launch if they had a bad day or something. They'd have had to get authority from higher up the food chain.

 

[sublight_]

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/nuclear-launch-officers/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Which begs the question, how many people in the United States are authorized to launch nuclear weapons?

I think you might have the wrong impression. These guys couldn't just go in an launch if they had a bad day or something. They'd have had to get authority from higher up the food chain.

The article does say "Air Force commander has stripped 17 of his officers of their authority to control and launch nuclear missiles."

If they are just for the sole purpose of authenticating the ill handled codes and physically initiating the launch sequence, then what purpose do they serve other than adding latency to a launch? No WOPR jokes please....

 

[bobbymike]

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/nuclear-launch-officers/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Which begs the question, how many people in the United States are authorized to launch nuclear weapons?

I think you might have the wrong impression. These guys couldn't just go in an launch if they had a bad day or something. They'd have had to get authority from higher up the food chain.

The article does say "Air Force commander has stripped 17 of his officers of their authority to control and launch nuclear missiles."

If they are just for the sole purpose of authenticating the ill handled codes and physically initiating the launch sequence, then what purpose do they serve other than adding latency to a launch? No WOPR jokes please....

That is what they mean and what these launch officers do authenticate and turn your key sir!! They have no independent launch authority it would all come from the NCA. That is also why right up to the end of the Cold War a so-called 'decapitation strike' on DC was always a concern and why the Soviets had "Deadhand".

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Which begs the question, how many people in the United States are authorized to launch nuclear weapons?

in the military? ZERO.

They must be given the order by proper civilian authorities.

What about if someone in the military goes nuts? well there are lots of security/safety measures in place, and of course even if that were to happen its not authorized so the answer is still zero.