Would Trump press the button?

[Dr Markus]

Could have sent them a "warning" cake, maybe.

[Moleskin]

Makes sense that the US would want to use their bomb and send out a message, and not want Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.
Cant see that anything Moleskin has posted is especially contentious.

It was 'Jimboic' conspiracy theory apparently.

[...]

Could have sent them a "warning" cake, maybe.

Many a true word spoken in jest, Markus. Doubtless moaning Mingy will be along shortly to attempt to rip strips off me for not being sorry enough for something that happened before I was born.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5632195/the-gre ... sy-of-1946

The woman watching the two military poobahs cutting the cake seems to have gotten into the spirit of the party by wearing some sort of mushroom-cloud-shaped fascinator on her head

[Tactful Cactus]

Makes sense that the US would want to use their bomb and send out a message, and not want Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.
Cant see that anything Moleskin has posted is especially contentious.

It was 'Jimboic' conspiracy theory apparently.

Ahhh so thats what got your knickers in a twist!
Just for the record I didn't say "conspiracy"...not that you deserve an answer mind

[The Modernist]

.."realms of fantasy" being so much more respectful than conspiracy.

[Tactful Cactus]

Exactly, get it right!

[Insouciant Western People]

Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.

I'm fairly sure the Japanese wouldn't have wanted that either.

[Insouciant Western People]

Japanese civilians are people too.

One point, and one question.

The Asian civilians living within the areas that Japan occupied were people too. US historian Robert Newman has calculated that they were dying at a rate of between 250,000 to 400,000 per month in the final stages of the war in the Pacific.

Should allied servicemen (Soviet, American, Indian, British, Nigerian, Nepalese etc etc) have died to save the lives of Japanese civilians?

Because that's the kind of question you have to confront when you get into this particular moral maze.

[Goat Boy]

Makes sense that the US would want to use their bomb and send out a message, and not want Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.
Cant see that anything Moleskin has posted is especially contentious.

I’m sure that would have ended well for the Japanese. I wonder how many lives would have been lost if that happened?

I’m surprised you don’t see anything that contentious here.

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945

Headline: The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives

The problem I have is that it is clearly trying to assert some kind of ‘fact’ or greater truth based on, by its own admission, inconclusive evidence, the opinion of “increasing numbers” of historians (which also means obviously that lots of historians don't agree with this), quotes (some persuasive but some second hand and lacking context) and a lot of conjecture. I would also suggest there is a very definite angle here that conveniently fits into an overarching narrative that is commonplace on the left (hello John PIlger). I find it rather shallow, conspiratorial and unconvincing.

For example, on the wiki page of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey there is a link to this:

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/25484

The year after the Japanese surrender, the U.S. government released its own Strategic Bombing Survey, an effort to assess the effectiveness of dropping bombs on civilian populations, including the firebombs used in Europe and the Pacific, and the atomic weapons detonated over Hiroshima and Tokyo (see Primary Source U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey [1946]). Its findings suggested that the bombs were largely superfluous, and that Japan’s surrender was all but guaranteed even without the threat of invasion. “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts,” the SBS concluded, “and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that . . . Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” Though firm in its assertions, the SBS received widespread criticism from many quarters for drawing conclusions far beyond the available evidence. (Many critics noted, rightly, that the SBS was itself hardly a disinterested document, since it was produced by an organization with an interest in emphasizing the effectiveness of conventional airpower.)

If you want an insight into the impact of the bomb on Japans leaders and the mentality of the Japanese then Sadao Asada might provide a counterpoint to some of the arguments:

http://www.fairbanksonline.net/Fairbanks_Online/Atomic_Bomb_Trials_Research_files/3641184.pdf

And so on. You could play this game all day of course. Trying to find balance is hard when discussing something as complex as this. This is why historians wrestle with it to this day. Put simply, I don’t think there is an alternative ‘truth’ here, no ‘real reason’ why the decision to drop the bomb was made. If it means anything I suspect that asserting US dominance was part of it, or, at the least lurking in the background because how could it not be but I don’t believe it was the primary goal.

[The Modernist]

Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.

I'm fairly sure the Japanese wouldn't have wanted that either.

As a defeated nation they wouldn't have had much say.

[The Modernist]

Makes sense that the US would want to use their bomb and send out a message, and not want Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.
Cant see that anything Moleskin has posted is especially contentious.

I’m sure that would have ended well for the Japanese. I wonder how many lives would have been lost if that happened?

I’m surprised you don’t see anything that contentious here.

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945

Headline: The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives

The problem I have is that it is clearly trying to assert some kind of ‘fact’ or greater truth based on, by its own admission, inconclusive evidence, the opinion of “increasing numbers” of historians (which also means obviously that lots of historians don't agree with this), quotes (some persuasive but some second hand and lacking context) and a lot of conjecture. I would also suggest there is a very definite angle here that conveniently fits into an overarching narrative that is commonplace on the left (hello John PIlger). I find it rather shallow, conspiratorial and unconvincing.

For example, on the wiki page of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey there is a link to this:

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/25484

The year after the Japanese surrender, the U.S. government released its own Strategic Bombing Survey, an effort to assess the effectiveness of dropping bombs on civilian populations, including the firebombs used in Europe and the Pacific, and the atomic weapons detonated over Hiroshima and Tokyo (see Primary Source U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey [1946]). Its findings suggested that the bombs were largely superfluous, and that Japan’s surrender was all but guaranteed even without the threat of invasion. “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts,” the SBS concluded, “and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that . . . Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” Though firm in its assertions, the SBS received widespread criticism from many quarters for drawing conclusions far beyond the available evidence. (Many critics noted, rightly, that the SBS was itself hardly a disinterested document, since it was produced by an organization with an interest in emphasizing the effectiveness of conventional airpower.)

If you want an insight into the impact of the bomb on Japans leaders and the mentality of the Japanese then Sadao Asada might provide a counterpoint to some of the arguments:

http://www.fairbanksonline.net/Fairbanks_Online/Atomic_Bomb_Trials_Research_files/3641184.pdf

And so on. You could play this game all day of course. Trying to find balance is hard when discussing something as complex as this. This is why historians wrestle with it to this day. Put simply, I don’t think there is an alternative ‘truth’ here, no ‘real reason’ why the decision to drop the bomb was made. If it means anything I suspect that asserting US dominance was part of it, or, at the least lurking in the background because how could it not be but I don’t believe it was the primary goal.

I felt the original post was not contentious because it presented a valid viewpoint which some (though certainly not all, and perhaps not the majority) historians hold. Perhaps contentious was the wrong word, but it was being dismissed as a crackpot theory which I felt was unfair. Clearly there are a range of views on this. This site does a good job of presenting them:
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/hiroshima-historiography.html#.WYx6m5VK3IU

Personally, knowing what we know about post-war American foreign policy and how much was shaped (and helped shape) The Cold War, I find it difficult to believe that the threat of Russian incursions into Japan wouldn't have been something at the forefront of their decision making.

[Sneelock]

you either think the US was justified unleashing those things into the world or you don't. I don't but I generally keep my mouth shut about it because I don't like getting my ears boxed.

whichever side of the argument you are on, I think you'll probably agree that Truman had a general idea of what he was doing - of what the cost would be, especially Nagasaki. Trump, I think we would all agree can't see beyond whatever screen is in front of him at any given time. I am frequently troubled by the number of people who use "Nuking" as a suggestion for addressing problems in the world. Trump is their guy.

another quick point - I think all these years of "the war on terror" has changed the way people think about weapons of war. everything is discussed as "surgical" and "strategic" even as these things drag on & the socio-political messes mulitply. Eric Schlosser's book "Command & Control" is a sober reminder that these weapons are not surgical & strategic and that the plans to use them are just as beset by problems as other plans.

Hopefully cooler heads than Trump's will be involved in any such decisions. still, the thought of such weapons being, even on some level, subject to the whims of such a man as TRUMP is enough to wake me from a sound sleep.

[Goat Boy]

Makes sense that the US would want to use their bomb and send out a message, and not want Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.
Cant see that anything Moleskin has posted is especially contentious.

I’m sure that would have ended well for the Japanese. I wonder how many lives would have been lost if that happened?

I’m surprised you don’t see anything that contentious here.

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945

Headline: The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives

The problem I have is that it is clearly trying to assert some kind of ‘fact’ or greater truth based on, by its own admission, inconclusive evidence, the opinion of “increasing numbers” of historians (which also means obviously that lots of historians don't agree with this), quotes (some persuasive but some second hand and lacking context) and a lot of conjecture. I would also suggest there is a very definite angle here that conveniently fits into an overarching narrative that is commonplace on the left (hello John PIlger). I find it rather shallow, conspiratorial and unconvincing.

For example, on the wiki page of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey there is a link to this:

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/25484

The year after the Japanese surrender, the U.S. government released its own Strategic Bombing Survey, an effort to assess the effectiveness of dropping bombs on civilian populations, including the firebombs used in Europe and the Pacific, and the atomic weapons detonated over Hiroshima and Tokyo (see Primary Source U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey [1946]). Its findings suggested that the bombs were largely superfluous, and that Japan’s surrender was all but guaranteed even without the threat of invasion. “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts,” the SBS concluded, “and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that . . . Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” Though firm in its assertions, the SBS received widespread criticism from many quarters for drawing conclusions far beyond the available evidence. (Many critics noted, rightly, that the SBS was itself hardly a disinterested document, since it was produced by an organization with an interest in emphasizing the effectiveness of conventional airpower.)

If you want an insight into the impact of the bomb on Japans leaders and the mentality of the Japanese then Sadao Asada might provide a counterpoint to some of the arguments:

http://www.fairbanksonline.net/Fairbanks_Online/Atomic_Bomb_Trials_Research_files/3641184.pdf

And so on. You could play this game all day of course. Trying to find balance is hard when discussing something as complex as this. This is why historians wrestle with it to this day. Put simply, I don’t think there is an alternative ‘truth’ here, no ‘real reason’ why the decision to drop the bomb was made. If it means anything I suspect that asserting US dominance was part of it, or, at the least lurking in the background because how could it not be but I don’t believe it was the primary goal.

I felt the original post was not contentious because it presented a valid viewpoint which some (though certainly not all, and perhaps not the majority) historians hold. Perhaps contentious was the wrong word, but it was being dismissed as a crackpot theory which I felt was unfair. Clearly there are a range of views on this. This site does a good job of presenting them:
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/hiroshima-historiography.html#.WYx6m5VK3IU

Personally, knowing what we know about post-war American foreign policy and how much was shaped (and helped shape) The Cold War, I find it difficult to believe that the threat of Russian incursions into Japan wouldn't have been something at the forefront of their decision making.

I wouldn't dismiss it as "crackpot" but I do find it facile. I think when people are saying stuff like "the real reason the bomb was dropped" and then posit that then they are swimming in shallower waters.

Thanks for posting the link. I'll have a look when I get the chance

[naughty boy]

The sun was shining when I walked to work this morning. Quite unusual for Sheffield, that.

[The Prof]

Are you sure it was the sun and not the opening scene from Threads?

[naughty boy]

Hm. You could be right.

They'd probably welcome it! With open arms!

[The Prof]

Not too happy abut this. Right in the middle of 4 thermal radiation radiuses.

[Sneelock]

there goes the neighborhood!

[BARON CORNY DOG]

Whitby it is!

[Count Machuki]

Not too happy abut this. Right in the middle of 4 thermal radiation radiuses.

Brixworth is walking a mighty fine line, there...