Relaxation or just the normal war?

[Maes]

Ralphis said:

So the Japanese all of a sudden had no satellite islands, but don't give up. I guess at that point they'd just go on their way and mind their business.

They would just, as we say in Greece "boil in their own broth". They could be badass and war-like all they wanted, they had no more means to project this power elsewhere.

Let's say that they didn't "give up" and the US didn't plan on invading them... what would they do? They would soon see the pointlessness in continuing the "war effort" inland (much like running a race in an empty racetrack, at that point), and would negotiate a surrender.

Know what the catch is though? It would not be unconditional like the A-bombs managed to do, and the Japanese would not just bend over and say "Gomenasai Yankee-sama. Please have your way with my ass anytime you like!"

And that would just not be good enough for the US because they'd lose an opportunity to keep the USSR at bay from the east, and intervene in the future conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

I'm really curious to see exactly what do you think Japan would do if they hadn't been A-bombed. Keep in mind, no navy, no air-force, and a whole hostile fleet keeping them on their island and a hostile airforce scouting and bombing them all the time. At most they would be in a perpetual "war" state like N. Korea or Cuba, maybe for a few years more, and we all know what a shitty threat those are. Japan would be even less of a threat, in this state.

There were however alternative scenarios like e.g. negotiating a peace treaty/alliance with the USSR which would fuck up yankee plans for the future, and good luck untangling that mess up.

The A-Bomb forced the Japanese into a quick unconditional surrender before things got hairier for the US geostrategically and politically wise. That wouldn't be accomplished by leaving them in their misery, I'll give you that.

[GreyGhost]

Maes said:

Are you aware that by the time of the atomic bombing, Japan had lost all of its island bases, had no navy or air force to speak of, and so couldn't project its had-been military power anywhere, anymore?

That excuse that dropping the bombs saved "hundred of thousands of American lives" is idiotic, unless a mainland invasion a-la D-Day was needed for Japan too.

The American's took what they'd learnt from the Battle of Okinawa (fanatical defenders and a civilian population that had been brainwashed into preferring suicide to surrender), extrapolated the figures to estimate their losses from an invasion of the main islands (1 million+) and didn't like what they saw.

Think about it for a moment. A fucking second D-Day, vs a crippled enemy that can't harm anyone anymore, and had been kicked out of all of its former occupied territories. Why do it in the first place?

The war's not over until one side admits defeat or has a hobnailed boot on their throat. North Korea's a classic example of what can happen when neither of those conditions is met.

I'd read or heard somewhere that Hiroshima was essentially the final phase of the A-bomb test program. The city contained few if any significant military targets so had hardly been touched by US bombers, making it a suitable site for gathering baseline data on the effectiveness of what was still an experimental weapon. The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki partly to prove that the first wasn't a fluke and of course to demonstrate to the Japanese government just how vulnerable they'd become.

[Maes]

GreyGhost said:

The war's not over until one side admits defeat or has a hobnailed boot on their throat. North Korea's a classic example of what can happen when neither of those conditions is met.

Exactly what I said in my second post just above. However there were interests totally unrelated to "saving thousands of american lives" that would be lost on a -hypothetical, as well as pointless- mainland invasion. If they hadn't got the A-bomb, they would have left Japan in a N.Korea-like state forever, or until a surrender on favorable terms was met. I don't think they'd really plan on doing a second D-day, not worth it if there was no other way.

They needed a big splash to end the war and justify the war effort in the eye of their own people (internal consumption), terrorize their current "allies" for the future (external consumption) and most importantly they needed Japan's geostrategical position (the real reason).

Think what would happen if they didn't acquire it: they would be much more powerless in Korea and Vietnam, without a "friendly" large supply base nearby. Having a "grey zone" Japan who would be in a powerless but hostile position for perhaps decades wouldn't satisfy any of the above goals.

[dew]

maes may be partly right when he speaks about red scare, but it was most certainly not the fear of ussr and japan making an alliance. the war in europe was over already and usa had to end their pacific campaign asap, because the red army started making it's own moves to invade japan.

russia and japan were fighting over kuril islands and sakhalin ever since late 18th century. the early 20th century first saw japan overtaking all of the kuril islands, then seizing sakhalin, then even launching a few invasions on kamchatka, all of that even before the ww2. at the end of it, soviets returned the favour, took everything back and pushed for even more, ending on sea rocks just a few kilometers north of hokkaido. if they were given more time, they'd do what usa wanted to avoid - a ground invasion.

while 'saving american lives' was certainly one of the reasons for the bombs, they were also a foreplay for the cold war. without such a swift american action we might have seen another 'allied liberation' from north and south, resulting in a country split similar to east and west germany. but that's just my wild speculations.

[dew]

Maes said:

Think what would happen if they didn't acquire it: they would be much more powerless in Korea and Vietnam, without a "friendly" large supply base nearby. Having a "grey zone" Japan who would be in a powerless but hostile position for perhaps decades wouldn't satisfy any of the above goals.

uh, i think that's too general and universal view. the korean conflict was a clash with the chinese type hardcore communism, not russian. this development was perhaps unforeseeable in 1945, because otherwise usa would support chiang kai-shek in china MUCH more. koreans then copied the chinese civil war - but too close to american region of influence. that's all i see in it.
if usa really wanted a power base in southeast asia, they would've kept phillipines, a bona fide american colony in the pre-ww2 era. but they granted them independence and bugged out after the, uhm, reconquista. throwing vietnam into the mix is far too speculative. i doubt anyone in america even knew about some backwards jungle colony of the french. it was them who had to fuck up seriously in order to get usa involved.

[Maes]

History has proved time and again that the USA have (or rather, had, up to the balkanic conflicts) probably the best geostrategic analysts around, able to foresee situations and scenarios decades before they occured. War games, evolution models, simulations, that's where it's all at.

What's more, others can make their analyses too, but the USA can actually move the pawns and make them happen.

For example, they did a smart move by intervening in Yugoslavia, and now Camp Bondsteel is the largest U.S. military base in Europe and the larger one close to the M.E., which more than comes in handy now.

OTOH there are -apparent- clamorous failures like the "War on Terror" but I'm sure there's some hidden agenda even behind that, whose effects will be clearer in perhaps a couple of decades from now.

[Ralphis]

George Bush did geostrategic analysis

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Maes said:

History has proved time and again that the USA have (or rather, had, up to the balkanic conflicts) probably the best geostrategic analysts around, able to foresee situations and scenarios decades before they occured. War games, evolution models, simulations, that's where it's all at.

What's more, others can make their analyses too, but the USA can actually move the pawns and make them happen.

For example, they did a smart move by intervening in Yugoslavia, and now Camp Bondsteel is the largest U.S. military base in Europe and the larger one close to the M.E., which more than comes in handy now.

OTOH there are -apparent- clamorous failures like the "War on Terror" but I'm sure there's some hidden agenda even behind that, whose effects will be clearer in perhaps a couple of decades from now.

And that's the reason why there are conspiracy theories about events leading up to it...oil pipelines in Afghanistan, oil reserves in Iraq etc.

[Creaphis]

Ralphis said:

George Bush did geostrategic analysis

That's even less likely than him doing 9/11.

[doom2day]

Creaphis said:

That's even less likely than him doing 9/11.

Now Dick Cheney on the other hand...

[Quasar]

Maes said:

OTOH there are -apparent- clamorous failures like the "War on Terror" but I'm sure there's some hidden agenda even behind that, whose effects will be clearer in perhaps a couple of decades from now.

Most people suggest that would be attempting to stop China from gaining hegemony over the area.

Anyway, Dresden was indeed a tragedy, and its only real purpose was an attempt to impress the Soviets, just as with Hiroshima.

[Prince of Darkness]

Technician said:

I can accept the first bomb. The second was overkill.

Exactly. I had a big discussion about this in my history class in the end of my junior year in high school about this, In which myself and three friends were up against some 16+ odd kids who were "NO WE SHOULD HAVE NOT DRPED ANYTING". It ended up with our side positively destroying the other, even to the point at where I was bringing up pictures of people with burlap clothing burned into their flesh and we still won. The only person who didn't succumb was this dumbass poser, who's only retort to my speeches was asking how I would feel if he killed my aunt.

But the end result is the same either way; no matter what, we had to demoralize Japan to the point where much of the civilian populace would yield. Even though Japan was going through a political uprising (with planned coups against the emperor and only 1/2 of his parliament willing to stand by him) we needed something to truly smash any morale that they had; and what better than a fireball as hot as the fucking sun?

Of course, the other reason being that a D-Day like invasion would have taken an enormous level of planning from both the US and Russia, taking at least 1,000,000 (!) US soldiers in the initial invasion to establish a proper beachhead and with each war showing that, time and time again, if a fight occurs in a heavily populated area (like Japan) the civilian casualties will equal over 3 times that of soldier deaths. Now thats food for thought.

[Maes]

Prince of Darkness said:

If a fight occurs in a heavily populated area (like Japan) the civilian casualties will equal over 3 times that of soldier deaths. Now thats food for thought.

Point taken, but it's moot unless you desire a speedy and total surrender of the enemy for whatever reasons. If the US wasn't in such a hurry to secure Japan as a base to keep the Russkies at bay, then they wouldn't have minded just keeping a fleet anchored just outside of Japan and let them starve to death in a few months with no air force, no navy, no supplies and no trade. No American soldier would have died on Japanese ground simply because none would ever need to set foot there. It would be like watching starving chained bears in a zoo cage slowly dying in their filth.

Of course, the equation changes if there were future agendas and the Russkies's unpredictability to account for....