Mushrooms
Today marks the sixty-eighth anniversary of the second – and, hopefully, last – use of nuclear weapons in the history of mankind.
At approximately 11:01 AM local time, the US Army Air Forces B-29 “Bockscar” – piloted by Major Charles W. Sweeney – released a nuclear weapon (“Fat Man”) over Nagasaki. Forty-three seconds later, the device exploded. It is estimated that between 60,000 and 90,000 individuals were killed outright or died within 4 months due to acute effects directly attributable to bombing.
Nagasaki was not the original target for the raid – that was Kokura. However, Kokura’s weather that day prohibited visual bombing outright; Major Sweeny diverted to Nagasaki, his secondary target. A last-minute break in weather there allowed Nagasaki to be bombed using visual bombing procedures.
The Nagasaka bombing followed the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima by three days, two hours, and 46 minutes. In that attack, the “Little Boy” device (a highly-enriched uranium gun design vice “Fat Man’s” more advanced implosion design using plutonium) was used. This earlier attack effectively destroyed the city of Hiroshima, inflicting between 90,000 and 166,000 estimated deaths – again, either immediately or within 4 months due to acute affects directly attributable to the bombing.
The use of these two weapons had the desired effect: it broke Japan’s will to continue the war. Within a week, the Japanese Emperor had decided to “endure the unendurable” and publicly announced acceptance of Allied surrender terms, ending hostilities. A formal and unconditional surrender was signed by the Emperor of Japan 17 days later.
. . .
Some today question the need for – and the morality of – these two bombings. Allow me to express my opinion on that issue.
Such individuals are at best damned fools. At worst, they are simply anti-American tools.
The two nuclear attacks killed between 150,000 and 256,000 individuals. The lower estimates for projected US casualties for the anticipated invasion of Japan necessary to end the war include about that many US dead alone; other estimates give a likely figure several times higher.
These figures do not include Japanese casualties; deaths for the Japanese side during an invasion were estimated to be literally in the millions. (On Okinawa and Iwo Jima, in excess of 90% of Japanese military personnel opposing Allied forces were killed or committed suicide – as did many in the civilian population.) Other alternatives that would end the war without the use of nuclear weapons – increased conventional bombings, an enhanced naval blockade to starve the Japanese into submission – were also estimated to kill literally millions of Japanese.
Yes, the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrific. But war itself is by its very nature horrific. Further, all available alternatives were even worse – and would have caused more pain, suffering, destruction, and death.
To argue against using nuclear weapons to end World War II is, in effect, to argue that prolonging the war and causing several times more unnecessary deaths and grossly more destruction and suffering would have been morally superior. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy that. I suspect the Deity doesn’t buy that, either.
. . .
Still: if you’re inclined towards prayer, please take a moment today and say a prayer for the souls of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Allied, Japanese, and those of other nationalities. Their deaths indeed were necessary for a swift end to the war; their deaths saved inestimable others elsewhere. Mankind should forever remember and respect that.
And while you’re at it, please add a second prayer. Ask God to grant mankind the wisdom to ensure that Nagasaki forever remains the last use of nuclear weapons in human history.
Category: Air Force, Historical, Military issues
The US was reading Japanese radio messages that showed no indication of an intent to surrender.
In addition to the horrific estimates of US casualties, There were estimates of 100,000 civilians a week dying in Japanese occupied territory such as China, and POW camps.
Bombs away.
Thanks for this post. So well said there is nothing for me to add.
It was a different time. The Japanese refused to surrender. We intended to win the war, and to bring the war to an end. We had an objective, and did what was necessary to achieve that objective.
Those who “apologize” for what we did then are fools. The same with those who refuse to understand the devestation caused by cowardice and incosistency, when decisiveness and leadership are needed.
There are times I feel like being the resident Dr Strangelove and start lobbing nukes all over the globe because…”AMURIKA FARK YEAH!!!!!”….
but this gives me pause….as it should.
Let’s not forget the coup that was about to take place before the Emperor could read the surrender to the people. It was disrupted by a B-29 raid that night. The military leaders had no intention of surrendering believing all too much in Bashido and that they were modern Samurai. At that point in the war the American people were losing heart added to that was the cost in taking the home islands and the use of Kamikaze’s. Not only would the cost have been high it may have raged until 1947 or resulted in a surrender under terms or the Soviet Union getting involved and Japan being divided like German and Eastern Europe. The advantage of the nay sayers have is that they do not have the weight of all those lives, Japanese, American, and Allies on their shoulder along with a public tired of war. It is much easier to look back at history and judge based on data you have now verse being a leader then and carrying the hopes of the world on your shoulders. Had we not used them the world would be a different place and likely more wars. All one has to do is look at how wars were escalating prior to that and death tolls rising. The invention and use of the bomb brought about and end for desire for all out conflict because no one would win. Yes there was Korea, Vietnam and others but those figures are far less. The use of the bomb had more far reaching effects for the world and as was all ready pointed out war is ugly be it rocks and sticks or nuclear weapons it is ugly and brings out the best and worst humanity has to offer. One could also point out the spin off effects of it in medical research especially much of which we take for granted today but that is for another time.
It is also well to remember that, by this time, the US had already had experience with a moribund regime in Europe that refused to surrender. They had a very good idea what an extra year of war would cost, to both the allies and the civilian population.
Very true and few today grasp the mindset we were dealing with in many of the Japanese military leadership the best comparison is AQ and other extremists willing to die for their cause as they believe it will be with honor and for a greater cause. Despite overwhelming military odd they are still fighting us and single pilots with a plane laden with explosives sent ships to the bottom.
@5, i’ve thought along the same lines of japan getting divided down the middle and i’m pretty sure it would have made the cold war worse. If japan was split down the middle, come korea, russia would have had an active presence in the region and might well have become actively involved. Besides making a bad situation worse, it may well have escalated to the point where truman decided to bring the bomb to the fore front anyway. instead of japan, it might well have turned out to be china that ended up making history. In the mean time, who’s to say russia wouldn’t have developed their own program and the whole situation wouldn’t have devolved to a full blown nuclear slug fest? If the bomb had to be dropped, i’m glad it landed on a country that couldn’t develop one of it’s own and fight back. Does that make me a horrible person? probably. But if we didn’t have the perspective of exactly what hiroshima and nagasaki cost us, we would have ended up paying the price with interest at another time and date.
Today is also the anniversary of President Nixon’s resignation.
I was in the Army when that happened, stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, as a scout (MOS 11D20) in CSC, 1/7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division.
I’ve got a nice looking Certificate of Appreciation from President Nixon.
Here’s the URL where you can see a picture of it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/writesong/9474163696/in/photostream/lightbox/
They gave me that certificate when I got back from Korea.
Well, I’d better get to the mess hall.
I’m looking forward to some fish and chips, with coconut meringue pie for dessert!
Tonight, they’re feeding us grilled ribeye steak and baked potato for supper.
@9 Mr. Mallernee, I always like your posts because you always add something interesting.
Wish I was there to help you with that ribeye! 😉
Did you ever notice that post-war descriptions of the Axis Powers were rather forgiving. “The Italians weren’t in favor of war. It was that SOB Musolini and he got his!” or “The German people were not so much to blame. It was Hitler and those damn Nazis!” And the other Axis countries? Not much is spoken about them. Japan is different. I have never heard only Tojo or only the Imperial Forces blamed. I don’t recall ever hearing a civilian exception for Japan as I have for the Euro nations. I’m open to someone correcting me or telling me I’m nuts.
@5 I read a really good book a few months back about that last raid and the coup attempt. Of course, I’ll be damned if I can remember it and googling hasn’t helped either.
It’s a good thing that the Japanese surrendered when they did after the second bomb. Those were the only two we had at the time, purified uranium being scarce at that time.
There was an element of blaming the populations of all 3 nations, 2/17 Air Cav. The Italians got relief by tossing Mussolini in 1943. The Germans? Not so much. From what I’ve read, they were still being called “Krauts”, “Huns”, and “Heinies” throughout the war. And the initial treatment of Germany during occupation, pre-Berlin Airlift, was pretty damned harsh. (The US treatment of Japan IMO also changed notibly after June 1950; in fact, occupation ended earlier in Japan than in West Germany.) That said: the collective distain for Italians and Germans does not seem to have been as strong as that directed against the Japanese. Part of that is due to the difference in how each fought and treated prisoners. In Italy and Germany, captured personnel were generally treated reasonably well and more-or-less in accordance with what we considered the “rules of civilized nations”. Germans and Italians would also often surrender vice fighting to the death when there was no hope. In contrast, Japan saw anyone who surrendered as having no honor – and treated them as such. They would literally suicide before capture, and treated POWs as dishonorable scum. Their society viewed self-immolation preferable to capture. And, frankly, racial prejudice probably played a part too. Germans and Italians were Europeans and looked like us; Japanese weren’t and didn’t. But I’m guessing it was a minor part vice the main reason. That latter contention is bolstered by the fact that it was not only the Japanese-American community that was interred during World War II by FDR and his administration. It’s not received a lot of publicity, but some Italian-Americans were also forcibly detained during World War II. That program fizzled fairly quickly due to the fact that there were far more of Italian-American ancestry in CONUS than there were of Japanese-American ancestry. Due to an even larger German-American population and their longer presence within “mainstream” American society, no such program was to my knowledge started against German-Americans. In contrast, no such detention policy was pursued in Hawaii – where the sheer number of individuals of Japanese ancestry made doing so… Read more »
…and the American high command was loaded w/ officers of German heritage…notably Eisenhower, Spaatz, Eichelberger, Nimitz, Krueger to name just a few. Would have been very awkward sticking these men in the stockade.
@14 Hondo, racial prejudice did play a part. My mother used to tell me that when the War was discussed at the dinner table, either her father or his brother would invariably say ‘The yellow race will never defeat us.’ And she herself had an attitude that she could not completely conceal toward anyone not Caucasian.
The racial aspect may or may not be a factor. I can make a strong argument both that it did and did not influence the collective American view of the Japanese. I have no point set-up, just the observation which may or may not square with the views and experiences of others.
Would not argue against any of the causal factors mentioned already, but would add two which I think were perhaps even greater influences.
First, this was not the first war in which Americans assisted their allies in Europe. A generation later, certainly, but the players and the rules remained much the same. Unlike WWI, though, there was not nearly the amount of dissent (and sedition) among Americans of German descent on US soil. And there was plenty of support on the ground in Europe for aircrews shot down and other protections given by the civilian population. American liberators were welcomed in most countries.
Second, Japan directly attacked US interests unlike in Europe where the Axis attacked almost exclusively the assets of our allies. That gave an entirely different spin to the war in the Pacific, and the ethnicity of the attackers did matter. We saw a multitude of cultural differences once we were at war with Japan, but initially, a defensive response was appropriate no matter who it was. The details of just how fierce and unyielding they would be an how universal that philosophy was among the populace were soon discovered.
These two thoughts could likely be summarized as the differences between fighting a familiar, previously tested (albeit improved) enemy and fighting one whose tactics and methods were largely unknown except to a relative few US war fighters.
Nice reminder, Hondo. And great discussion everyone!
Third paragraph, “…the ethnicity of the attackers did NOT matter…”
If the bombs didn’t work, we were planning to invade Japan in 1946. Estimated US casulties were 1 million. The United States medal contracts produced so many Purple Hearts that they were still available until a few years ago.
Good points made, I’ll say. The familiar-foe angle is not something I had contemplated and the atrocities of the Japanese in China during the 30s were, if not widely known, certainly not a secret in the US. When combined with the attack at Pearl, the Japanese were ripe for general disdain, without exception, I suppose. (Strange things are happening with this attempt to post. I apologize if this appears more than once.)
I knew an old WW2 Vet who said that that the only thing louder then the Atomic Bombs being dropped was the collective sound of the unpuckering of rectums of the combat experienced Soldiers and Marines who were slated for the invasion.
I have yet to hear of a single account of one of them regreting it.
hmm, i thought it was the invasion of the northern islands of japan by soviet forces that caused japan to surrender. I mean the Soviets kicked their butts hard when they went into russia in the 30s and they were doing it again in manchuria. It seemed to me that they more scared of the Soviets than the americans
AC, if my memory of those history lessons we had back in the 50’s and 60’s is correct, the isolationist tendencies of the general populace were still pretty strong in the US following WWI, so the pacifist movement was able to drive US sentiment against becoming involved in WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Oh, sure, the atrocities in both Europe and Asia were known, but the full ramifications were much better known, even to the military, from the European theater. The guys flying the hump and such certainly knew, but the naiveté of Americans generally simply could not fathom the depth and breadth of most of it, especially the tactics they would face in the Pacific.
Auto: considering that the invasion of the only arguably Japanese islands (south Sakhalin and the Kuriles) began on the same day (south Sakhalin) or two days after (Kuriles) the Japanese Emperor had announced his intent to accept Allied Unconditional Surrender terms – I don’t think so.
In point of fact, south Sakhalin Island and the Kuriles were never core Japanese territory. The latter were split between Russia and Japan in the 1860s; Sakhalin Island, in 1905.
Russian forces never invaded the Japanese main islands.
Hondo: thanks for the info. I must have reading some pro russian sources then. Because it said that approx 12 hrs after the soviet forces invaded the first Japanese island, ,the Japanese not wanting the soviets hitting the main islands they surrendered. Considering their success in previous engagements with Japanese forces it sounded reasonable to me. I guess it made it sound bigger than it was.
The Russians had it all over the Japanese when it came to wide open Maneuver Warfare. The Japanese were disciplined fighters but would never stand a chance in an all out combined arms scrap on terrain like Manchuria against the Armor Arty and Air Power the Soviets had. Japs fought well in the jungles and with their backs against the wall in fortified positions.
Even on the Islands against the US they had very little success in any large scale land attacks.
Paul Fussell, who was a Marine waiting for the order to invade Japan wrote a book about it called “Thank God For The Atom Bomb.” He takes a harder look at the number of people killed by the bombs versus what casualty counts – American, Japanese and civilian – could be expected in a campaign like that and argues that the a-bombs saved the lives of tens of thousands who would die in later fighting. It would be house-to-house fighting the whole damn island.
http://www.amazon.ca/Thank-Atom-Bomb-Paul-Fussell/dp/0786103957a
What happened happened. No need to vilify or justify anything.
Was it necessary? You could say yes and I’d accept that. But to say that it would’ve saved lives implies that Japan would’ve always accepted surrender after the bombs dropped. What if the coup on Hirohito had succeeded? What if the Emperor refused to give in after the second bomb? See when you’re arguing with hypotheticals you can’t take anything as a given or fact. And when you’re arguing with assumptions you only find that you can never assume anything.
Anyway, I’m sure that the Bomb will be dropped again. Hopefully not in this country nor in anyone else’s.
Anonymous (29): actually, you’re using poor reasoning above.
I assumed nothing above. I compared what actually happened – the use of 2 nuclear weapons, which caused the quick end of the war – with what was reasonably estimated to have occurred had the war continued. That is the accepted method of evaluating the correctness of a decision made a posteriori – e.g., was it the best choice among reasonable alternatives.
US forces had by this point in the war developed various casualty prediction methods – some going so far as to predict the number of US casualties per day per 1000 troops deployed. These methods were based on historical data from the war, and I’m also reasonably sure they were adjusted for variances between theaters. We’d also developed methods of predicting civilian casualties from bombing, shipping interruption, disease, etc . . .
The bottom line: although we couldn’t predict the specific individuals, we could rather accurately predict the number of individuals who would die had the war continued. It was huge.
Further, your whole line of argument “what if the coup against Hirohito had succeeded” is nothing but a non sequitur. In that case, the answer is obvious: the war would simply have continued, and millions would have been lost – including, in statistical terms, all of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not necessarily the same individuals, but the same number). So in that turn of events, the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki become irrelevant – they (or the same number of Japanese residents, to be precise) would merely have been among those killed later in the war.
The bottom line is that using nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki held out a reasonable chance of ending the war, stopping the bloodshed and destruction – and saving literally millions of lives. To have had such an option and deliberately NOT used it would have been one of the great moral wrongs of history.