Comments by "milcoll73" (@thurin84) on "Obama Visits Hiroshima: Should We Apologize? My Thoughts" video.

  1. the use of the bombs was entirely necessary and equally inevitable to bring the war to a quicker conclusion saving american (and incidentally japanese) lives. japan had indded built up and husbanded its military capabilities on the home islands expressively in anticipation of an american invasion which the ruling military clique wished to force. japan had thousands and thousands of aircraft which they intended usa for suicide attacks. they also had thousands and thousands of suicide speed boats and mini submarines. any invasion wouldve been a bloodbath. i would say the bombs as well as the usas war making capabilities DID break the japanese spirt as evidenced by their total adherence to the usa occupation rule. the bomb was developed out of fear that hitler would get atomic weapons 1st. the military high command came to the decision to drop the bomb based on the japanese militarys aversion to surrender and the massive casualties taken involving defeating them, in war really already lost, in such places as iwo jima, and Okinawa. estimates of casualties for operation downfall were as high as 1 million dead (they were still awarding ww2 vintage mfg purple hearts up until desert storm, so many had been procurred in expectation of casualties from invading japans conquests and the home islands). the us was reaching war weariness and it was felt that incurring drastic casualties could lead to public to loose support for an unconditional surrender (which what japan was banking on {more on that later}). the civilian elements (and perhaps some military leaders) did make a peace offer. i believe it was a mostly play for time like the pre war "peace talks" prior to pearl harbor. the military high command ruling clique had no intention of surrendering unconditionally or otherwise at that point. they knew they were losing the war. they thought, however, if they could force americas hand into invading the home islands and she could inflict massive enough casualties that the us war weary civilian population would be so outraged and demoralized that we would accept a negotiated peace in some measure favorable to japan. considering the general populations growing war weariness this is not surprising if naive, in light of us anger at pearl harbor. an able demonstration of this is the "colonels coup". after the second bomb was dropped on nagasaki and the emperor (who was in some ways a figure head at this point) had made the decisions to "endure the unendurable" after "events had developed not necessarily in japans favor" and made the now famous surrenderless surrender speech, a group of influential and highly placed colonels and majors (the generals and admirals couldnt overtly disobey the emperor) tried to intercept the records containing the speech to prevent its broadcast with the express purpose of prosecuting the war AFTER BOTH BOMB ATOMIC BOMBS HAD BEEN DROPPED! this is also an able demonstration as to why just dropping the bombs on uninhabited islands wouldve done no good. if they would try to continue the war after theyd been dropped on their own people, why would the respond to them being dropped on useless islands? re; bombing japanese cities (ie civilians). ive always questioned the morality of this. but given the more or less dispersed nature of much of the japanese war production and the importance of cottage industry to the aforementioned, i know no other way the us could degrade the japanese war machine at that time, in that place. it is said in war, the only immorality is loosing. i dont know that i necessarily agree with this, in that it leaves the door open to all manner of horrible outcomes. but there was a war to be won. yes fears that the military clique was willing to fight to the death were well founded as evidence by kamikazi attacks and the large number of okha, jet, shinyo, boat, and kaiten, submarine suicide vessels held in reserve for opposing the us invasion fleet. discovered only after the surrender during the occupation. as ive said previously the military clique ruling japan had no intention of surrendering in the belief that the "bushido" spirit would allow the "sacred 100 million" to resist the us invasion and rescue japan, or at least force a negotiated peace. interestingly enough this belief was founded on the outcome of the last attempted invasion of japan by the mongols where japan was rescued by the kamikazi (divine wind) the destroyed the mongol fleet whist it plied the sea of japan in the 13th century. the time frame was purposeful as a us propaganda campaign promised a "reign of destruction the like of which has never been seen on earth" until the japanese surrendered. it was an attempt to convince the japanese high command that clockwork destruction on such a scale would continue unabated until japan surrendered. it was an elaborate bluff. the japanese may not have understood the exact nature of the bomb (though some sources said the had their own atomic program and had actually detonated their own atomic bomb just prior to the end of the war [though not any source ive found credible] but they fully understood the reality of such destruction from just, at most 3 bombers (and there were survivors who reported seeing a single bomb drop), vs a several hundred aircraft raid. up to this point the japanese had been conditioned to, and largely ignored us geosurvey, and meteorological raids of 2s and 3s of aircraft. the fact that such a small apparent investment of lives and military hardware could produce such a devastating effect was to have (and did on most) damaging effect on the japanese psyche that they would immediately accept unconditional surrender. in fact firebombing raids also continued after the abombs were dropped. in any case this whole debate is academic and intellectual wool gathering of the worst sort (as opposed to future use of nuclear weapons). with the bomb costing 2 billion 1940s dollars and millions of man hours and tons of resources and the delivery system (the b-29) costing 3 billion 1940s dollars (thats right it cost MORE then the bombs) as well as aforementioned countless man hours and resources, there was zero chance. ZERO CHANCE! of it not being employed or being employed impotently (ie on uninhabited island). it was a new and powerful weapon arriving at the fever pitch of a conflict with an implacable foe. also, can you imagine the public outcry, had it not been used, by the families and friends of the dead and the maimed that there was a potentially war winning weapon AND IT WASNT USED DUE TO MORALISTIC REASONS CONCERNING AN ENEMY?!?!?!?!?! there wouldve been blood in the streets. something else to think about. before those terrible bombs were dropped battle deaths due to war had been increasing exponentially to a crescendo during ww2, afterwards they dropped and the trend was reversed. even despite weapons having greater and greater lethal capacity. fewer people per capita are dying per year, per average than before they were dropped. the bombs made total, industrial war unwinnable. i started reading on this subject back in the 80s when the whole revisionist bs started. i did an interview of my friend and mentor lyman rhodes for a school newspaper. i interviewed him on ww2 and the use of the atomic bombs. i felt he had a unique perspective in that he was an aa gunner on an LST (landing ship, tank [a flat bottomed ship that beached itself during an invasion to disgorge vehicles including tanks {a juicy target youll agree}]) waiting on okinawa making preparations for operation coronet (the invasion of kyushu scheduled for nov 1 1945). i asked him what his reaction was when he learned the bombs had been dropped and the war was over. he said "i wept like a baby!". taken aback i asked "why". "because i knew then i would live and get to go home and make love with my beautiful wife!" he said. now, were he still with us, could you say to him and the others that couldve and wouldve lost their lives in an invasion that was avoided that their lives were a worthy sacrifice for some dubious position of moral superiority?
    1