Since when are we at war with China?
I also want to point folks to this wiki entry on Japanese Unit 731: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731If China, let's say, decided to drop nuclear weapons on the US and if you survive long enough to express an opinion, would you also say, it "may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on [for China anyway], and that's got to count for something"? It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Lois Lois, all your time on this forum, and you are still coming up with false equivalencies. Get it together.Unit 731 (Japanese: 731部隊 Hepburn: Nana-san-ichi Butai?) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China). It was officially known as the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関"防疫給水部本部 Kantgun Beki Kyūsuibu Honbu?). Originally set up under the Kempeitai military police of the Empire of Japan, Unit 731 was taken over and commanded until the end of the war by General Shiro Ishii, an officer in the Kwantung Army. The facility itself was built between 1934 and 1939 and officially adopted the name "Unit 731" in 1941. Between 3,000 and 250,000[1] men, women, and children[2][3]—from which around 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai[4]—died during the human experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100.[5]There's more. Lots more. Nuking Japan may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on, and that's got to count for something.
I do not want to repeat the discussion, but I am pretty convinced that it was not necessary to throw the bombs. The Japanese could have been brought to capitulation with other means and earlier. See here], and further, for my arguments.Assuming all of the Roling points are correct (and that is a lot of assuming, but I'll take your word that he sufficiently backed them up) they don't include whether the Americans knew in advance that allowing the Emperor to stay in power would have been a tenable strategic decision. The Japanese were such an ominous opponent, in part because of their fervent dedication to the Emperor who was a god-like figure for them. Until McArthur met Hirohito in person, I don't think that he knew that allowing him to live would have worked. An unconditional surrender was necessary, not a surrender with the advance condition that Hirohito would be allowed to retain power. So, that there were political considerations that lead to the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, does not negate that there was a critical strategic consideration, as well.
If China, let's say, decided to drop nuclear weapons on the US and if you survive long enough to express an opinion, would you also say, it "may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on [for China anyway], and that's got to count for something"? It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? LoisIf we were the aggressors and had been committing inhuman atrocities on them I think it might be difficult to say they didnt have the right to use whatever means at their disposal to stop the loss of many more Chinese lives.
Since when are we at war with China?Not yet. Lois
I also want to point folks to this wiki entry on Japanese Unit 731: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731If China, let's say, decided to drop nuclear weapons on the US and if you survive long enough to express an opinion, would you also say, it "may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on [for China anyway], and that's got to count for something"? It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Lois Lois, all your time on this forum, and you are still coming up with false equivalencies. Get it together. Do you mean that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan is not equivalent to having nuclear bombs dropped on the US? Can you explain how that works? LoisUnit 731 (Japanese: 731部隊 Hepburn: Nana-san-ichi Butai?) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China). It was officially known as the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関"防疫給水部本部 Kantgun Beki Kyūsuibu Honbu?). Originally set up under the Kempeitai military police of the Empire of Japan, Unit 731 was taken over and commanded until the end of the war by General Shiro Ishii, an officer in the Kwantung Army. The facility itself was built between 1934 and 1939 and officially adopted the name "Unit 731" in 1941. Between 3,000 and 250,000[1] men, women, and children[2][3]—from which around 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai[4]—died during the human experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100.[5]There's more. Lots more. Nuking Japan may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on, and that's got to count for something.
Using the Atomic bombs on Japan was good for us because it prevented more American casualties. Besides that, I think it was also done to demonstrate our power to the Soviets.
On the larger scale of things it would be great to see nuclear disarmament worldwide, but that’s probably not going to happen.
I also want to point folks to this wiki entry on Japanese Unit 731: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731If China, let's say, decided to drop nuclear weapons on the US and if you survive long enough to express an opinion, would you also say, it "may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on [for China anyway], and that's got to count for something"? It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Lois Lois, all your time on this forum, and you are still coming up with false equivalencies. Get it together. Do you mean that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan is not equivalent to having nuclear bombs dropped on the US? Can you explain how that works? Lois Context, Lois, context.Unit 731 (Japanese: 731部隊 Hepburn: Nana-san-ichi Butai?) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China). It was officially known as the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関"防疫給水部本部 Kantgun Beki Kyūsuibu Honbu?). Originally set up under the Kempeitai military police of the Empire of Japan, Unit 731 was taken over and commanded until the end of the war by General Shiro Ishii, an officer in the Kwantung Army. The facility itself was built between 1934 and 1939 and officially adopted the name "Unit 731" in 1941. Between 3,000 and 250,000[1] men, women, and children[2][3]—from which around 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai[4]—died during the human experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100.[5]There's more. Lots more. Nuking Japan may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on, and that's got to count for something.
Since when are we at war with China?Not yet. LoisOr ever. Its bad for business. Too many of our electronics are made in China for us to consider becoming hostile towards them.
Assuming all of the Roling points are correct (and that is a lot of assuming, but I'll take your word that he sufficiently backed them up) they don't include whether the Americans knew in advance that allowing the Emperor to stay in power would have been a tenable strategic decision. The Japanese were such an ominous opponent, in part because of their fervent dedication to the Emperor who was a god-like figure for them. Until McArthur met Hirohito in person, I don't think that he knew that allowing him to live would have worked.Well, this is what Röling wrote:
Op 18 april 1945 reeds had de Amerikaanse militaire inlichtingendienst aan de regering laten weten, dat verandering van de eisen van onvoorwaardelijke capitulatie de Japanse overgave zou meebrengen. Men wist in Washington dat de Japanse capitulatie bereikt kon worden zonder A-bomAccording to Babelfish, and then slightly edited:
Already on 18 april 1945 the American military intelligence to the Government had let it be known, that a change of the demands of unconditional surrender would entail Japanese surrender. It was known in Washington that the Japanese surrender could be reached without A-bomb.Here] is the complete text, maybe with the correct translation tool... The civilian members of the Japanese government already wanted to surrender (but at the condition that emperor could stay), the militaries would continue until the end, with or without bomb. In the end it was the 'Salomon's decision' to let the emperor himself decide, who decided for surrender. Fanatic militaries tried to obstruct the radio transmission of the emperor's declamation, but they did not succeed. Don't forget, Röling has read the minutes of the Japanese war cabinet, he knew what lead to the decision to stop the war. It was interesting to hear the news item about the '70-year A-bombings' on the Swiss radio. Especially on the day of Nagasaki: it was clearly stated that the bombing from a military point of view was unnecessary. The Swiss state radio would really not say something like that if it were not backed up by academic historians. I think there was a simple reason for throwing the second bomb: it was of another type. The US wanted to test (and demonstrate) both types. The differences: 'Little Boy]', the Hiroshima bomb was based on Uranium-235, which must be made available through concentration of natural uranium, which is a mix of U-238 and U-235. This is a difficult and expensive process. The principle of the bomb however was easy: shoot one piece of U-235 strongly to another piece, so that the critical mass and concentration is reached. 'Fat Man]', the Nagasaki bomb, was based on plutionium-239, that can be produced in a nuclear reactor. Afterwards, it can be easily separated with chemical means from the rests of uranium in the reactor. However the construction of the bomb was much more difficult. It was based on an implosion, in which the plutonium is pressed together in order to reach the necessary concentration for a nuclear explosion. Considering these differences, why do you think it was necessary to throw a second bomb? Was one not enough to show which power the USA had? Or were the Japanese too slow deciding to surrender (3 days...)?
Using the Atomic bombs on Japan was good for us because it prevented more American casualties. Besides that, I think it was also done to demonstrate our power to the Soviets.As written above, the bombs were not needed for Japan's quick surrender. Your second point surely was one of the main motivations.
Assuming all of the Roling points are correct (and that is a lot of assuming, but I'll take your word that he sufficiently backed them up) they don't include whether the Americans knew in advance that allowing the Emperor to stay in power would have been a tenable strategic decision. The Japanese were such an ominous opponent, in part because of their fervent dedication to the Emperor who was a god-like figure for them. Until McArthur met Hirohito in person, I don't think that he knew that allowing him to live would have worked.Well, this is what Röling wrote:
Op 18 april 1945 reeds had de Amerikaanse militaire inlichtingendienst aan de regering laten weten, dat verandering van de eisen van onvoorwaardelijke capitulatie de Japanse overgave zou meebrengen. Men wist in Washington dat de Japanse capitulatie bereikt kon worden zonder A-bomAccording to Babelfish, and then slightly edited:
Already on 18 april 1945 the American military intelligence to the Government had let it be known, that a change of the demands of unconditional surrender would entail Japanese surrender. It was known in Washington that the Japanese surrender could be reached without A-bomb.Here] is the complete text, maybe with the correct translation tool... The civilian members of the Japanese government already wanted to surrender (but at the condition that emperor could stay), the militaries would continue until the end, with or without bomb. In the end it was the 'Salomon's decision' to let the emperor himself decide, who decided for surrender. Fanatic militaries tried to obstruct the radio transmission of the emperor's declamation, but they did not succeed. Don't forget, Röling has read the minutes of the Japanese war cabinet, he knew what lead to the decision to stop the war. It was interesting to hear the news item about the '70-year A-bombings' on the Swiss radio. Especially on the day of Nagasaki: it was clearly stated that the bombing from a military point of view was unnecessary. The Swiss state radio would really not say something like that if it were not backed up by academic historians. I think there was a simple reason for throwing the second bomb: it was of another type. The US wanted to test (and demonstrate) both types. The differences: 'Little Boy]', the Hiroshima bomb was based on Uranium-235, which must be made available through concentration of natural uranium, which is a mix of U-238 and U-235. This is a difficult and expensive process. The principle of the bomb however was easy: shoot one piece of U-235 strongly to another piece, so that the critical mass and concentration is reached. 'Fat Man]', the Nagasaki bomb, was based on plutionium-239, that can be produced in a nuclear reactor. Afterwards, it can be easily separated with chemical means from the rests of uranium in the reactor. However the construction of the bomb was much more difficult. It was based on an implosion, in which the plutonium is pressed together in order to reach the necessary concentration for a nuclear explosion. Considering these differences, why do you think it was necessary to throw a second bomb? Was one not enough to show which power the USA had? Or were the Japanese too slow deciding to surrender (3 days...)? I am not denying Roling's point that there were political considerations. But this still does not preclude the factor that we could not honestly accept Japan's surrender on the condition that Hirohito would be spared. We did not know, in advance, whether doing so would have lead to a prolonged devastating insurgency. As far as a 2nd bomb in "just" 3 days, it may, indeed have been, in part, to see the effects of a 2nd type of bomb. But don't you also see the strategic effect of showing the enemy that the first bomb was not just a fluke, or a one-trick pony? Another consideration is that 3 days was actually a long time, from the perspective of allied POW's held in Japan, as they were subject to being slaughtered at any given time. Japan had already slaughtered POWs in other places, and plans were in place to do so with POWs held in Japan. War is not nice.
I am not denying Roling's point that there were political considerations. But this still does not preclude the factor that we could not honestly accept Japan's surrender on the condition that Hirohito would be spared. We did not know, in advance, whether doing so would have lead to a prolonged devastating insurgency.Sorry, I do not get what you mean. Sparing the emperor would cause devastating insurgency? But in the end it was what the USA did. They could have assured the Japanese of this condition much earlier, and more POW might have been saved. Don't forget: the atomic bomb was developed because of the possibility that Nazi-Germany was also building it. But then Germany capitulated before the bomb was ready. And as I said, the work in Los Alamos was intensified after the German capitulation. I think it was because the bombs had to be ready before the end of the war with Japan (which was to expect soon anyway), otherwise they could not have been demonstrated anymore. I think the inertia of the technical development, together with the strategic gain against the USSR were the real motives. To say that the bombings ended the war was a cheap but very acceptable subterfuge for the public.
I am not denying Roling's point that there were political considerations. But this still does not preclude the factor that we could not honestly accept Japan's surrender on the condition that Hirohito would be spared. We did not know, in advance, whether doing so would have lead to a prolonged devastating insurgency.Sorry, I do not get what you mean. Sparing the emperor would cause devastating insurgency? But in the end it was what the USA did. They could have assured the Japanese of this condition much earlier, and more POW might have been saved. Don't forget: the atomic bomb was developed because of the possibility that Nazi-Germany was also building it. But then Germany capitulated before the bomb was ready. And as I said, the work in Los Alamos was intensified after the German capitulation. I think it was because the bombs had to be ready before the end of the war with Japan (which was to expect soon anyway), otherwise they could not have been demonstrated anymore. I think the inertia of the technical development, together with the strategic gain against the USSR were the real motives. To say that the bombings ended the war was a cheap but very acceptable subterfuge for the public.You have a nice way of conveying facts. Well said. And the weapons race has never looked back. Sure, no one has explained what we are racing for, but never mind, full steam ahead. Big boys love big toys that go boom.
. . . . . . . Big boys love big toys that go boom.Great quote and so true.
Using the Atomic bombs on Japan was good for us because it prevented more American casualties. Besides that, I think it was also done to demonstrate our power to the Soviets. On the larger scale of things it would be great to see nuclear disarmament worldwide, but that's probably not going to happen.Yes, especially considering that we can't even seem to get a temporary, barely adequate nuclear deal with Iran past the Republicans who have no other plan except to bust in there and start shooting. Typical Republican behavior. Lois
I also want to point folks to this wiki entry on Japanese Unit 731: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731If China, let's say, decided to drop nuclear weapons on the US and if you survive long enough to express an opinion, would you also say, it "may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on [for China anyway], and that's got to count for something"? It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Lois Lois, all your time on this forum, and you are still coming up with false equivalencies. Get it together. Do you mean that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan is not equivalent to having nuclear bombs dropped on the US? Can you explain how that works? Lois Context, Lois, context. Hypothetical, Tim, hypothetical. IF we were at war with China and wer winning, would China be justified in dropping nuclear weapons on the US to "save Chinese lives"? (or replace China with Russia, Iraq, Iran etc? When would such action be justified by a country we were at war with whose people were being killed? LoisUnit 731 (Japanese: 731部隊 Hepburn: Nana-san-ichi Butai?) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China). It was officially known as the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関"防疫給水部本部 Kantgun Beki Kyūsuibu Honbu?). Originally set up under the Kempeitai military police of the Empire of Japan, Unit 731 was taken over and commanded until the end of the war by General Shiro Ishii, an officer in the Kwantung Army. The facility itself was built between 1934 and 1939 and officially adopted the name "Unit 731" in 1941. Between 3,000 and 250,000[1] men, women, and children[2][3]—from which around 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai[4]—died during the human experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100.[5]There's more. Lots more. Nuking Japan may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on, and that's got to count for something.
I also want to point folks to this wiki entry on Japanese Unit 731: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731If China, let's say, decided to drop nuclear weapons on the US and if you survive long enough to express an opinion, would you also say, it "may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on [for China anyway], and that's got to count for something"? It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Lois Lois, all your time on this forum, and you are still coming up with false equivalencies. Get it together. Do you mean that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan is not equivalent to having nuclear bombs dropped on the US? Can you explain how that works? Lois Context, Lois, context. Hypothetical, Tim, hypothetical. IF we were at war with China and wer winning, would China be justified in dropping nuclear weapons on the US to "save Chinese lives"? ... Lois That is an imaginary and different scenario, hence it is not "equivalent" to the complex and real historical context in which the first atomic bombs were used. The world was different then, and as soon as the a-bombs were used to end WWII, (effectively, BTW), the world was different again. I can't imagine (without pushing my imagination more than, even, I am used to) another context in which I would think that using a nuclear bomb on people would be a correct decision, as I think it was at the end of WWII.Unit 731 (Japanese: 731部隊 Hepburn: Nana-san-ichi Butai?) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China). It was officially known as the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関"防疫給水部本部 Kantgun Beki Kyūsuibu Honbu?). Originally set up under the Kempeitai military police of the Empire of Japan, Unit 731 was taken over and commanded until the end of the war by General Shiro Ishii, an officer in the Kwantung Army. The facility itself was built between 1934 and 1939 and officially adopted the name "Unit 731" in 1941. Between 3,000 and 250,000[1] men, women, and children[2][3]—from which around 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai[4]—died during the human experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100.[5]There's more. Lots more. Nuking Japan may not have been the perfect solution, but it stopped a horror show from continuing on, and that's got to count for something.
I am not denying Roling's point that there were political considerations. But this still does not preclude the factor that we could not honestly accept Japan's surrender on the condition that Hirohito would be spared. We did not know, in advance, whether doing so would have lead to a prolonged devastating insurgency.Sorry, I do not get what you mean. Sparing the emperor would cause devastating insurgency? But in the end it was what the USA did. OK. Roling asserts that we knew in advance that our agreeing to sparing the emperor, would result in a surrender, right away. I am accepting that, based on your saying that Roling backs up that assertion. I am suggesting that we DID NOT know IN ADVANCE what the effect would subsequently be of sparing the emperor. We might have found it necessary to excecute the emperor. We only knew whether that was the best course of action AFTER we were in control of Japan, but we DID NOT know that IN ADVANCE. You can paint the US decision as an evil conspiracy, based only on aspirations of global domination, and 80 years after the decision was made, it may ring true to all those who have forgotten the complex realities of the time, but I think that it is a distorted view. Of course there were other considerations, that Roling, apparently, effectively points out. But, ultimately, what effectively happened is that the US ended the greatest war in mankind's history (a war that we did not start, BTW).
I am not denying Roling's point that there were political considerations. But this still does not preclude the factor that we could not honestly accept Japan's surrender on the condition that Hirohito would be spared. We did not know, in advance, whether doing so would have lead to a prolonged devastating insurgency.Sorry, I do not get what you mean. Sparing the emperor would cause devastating insurgency? But in the end it was what the USA did. OK. Roling asserts that we knew in advance that our agreeing to sparing the emperor, would result in a surrender, right away. I am accepting that, based on your saying that Roling backs up that assertion. I am suggesting that we DID NOT know IN ADVANCE what the effect would subsequently be of sparing the emperor. We might have found it necessary to excecute the emperor. We only knew whether that was the best course of action AFTER we were in control of Japan, but we DID NOT know that IN ADVANCE. You can paint the US decision as an evil conspiracy, based only on aspirations of global domination, and 80 years after the decision was made, it may ring true to all those who have forgotten the complex realities of the time, but I think that it is a distorted view. Of course there were other considerations, that Roling, apparently, effectively points out. But, ultimately, what effectively happened is that the US ended the greatest war in mankind's history (a war that we did not start, BTW). What would the US have done if it hadn't had the bomb? Give up? Surrender? Strafe Japan with the firepower we had? Lois