What if the US never bombed Japan.

[MrFelony]

Well i was talking to my friends about random things and the idea of what would have happened if the US didn't nuke japan. however the main idea of the discussion wasn't eluding to the war with japan but the future cold war and such. do you think the world view on atomic weaponry would have changed after seeing the devastation, or would have the bomb testing been enough to scare away countries from using the weapons. any discussion on the idea is more than welcome since i want the input of people who know more about the situation than myself .

basically im wondering what you guys think might have happened in many different areas of the future if the US happened to no bomb japan. I know this is a very theoretical question, it stemmed from a religious/philosophical discussion on my panglossian beliefs. Pangloss is a character from Voltaire's Candide who is based upon a philosopher who philosophized that this world is the best possible world and that what happens is the best possible way it could have happened and so forth.

[Eldo]

If US didn't bomb Japan, Japanese would be the new international language, and Kero Kero and Hello Kitty would be the new national anthem.

I can't participate in a serious discussion, can I?

[Shaka Zulu]

Not that I have put any serious thought to it, but regardless of how much I despise the US nuking the hell out of Japan, the only positive thing of that was the fact that the atom bomb was used and showed the world how horrific it is.

Which lead to pretty much even the biggiest warmongering hawks from both sides of the cold war sweating their balls of out of nervosity whenever the topic of using it came up. I think it would have been worse if it wasnt used, because the USSR and the US would proberly been more inclined to use it against eachother, and it a war between them would have involved pretty the whole world(the fact there wasnt any outright war was due to the fear of using the nukes on eachother, not sure the same fear would have been instilled on them otherwise).

[psi29a]

Ask the killfile sometime, since this area of time is his speciality. You won't believe how close we came to nuking each other, it is down right scary to think about.

I'm not a big fan of what-ifs because alternative-histories generally bore me however, had not dropped the bomb(s) it would have been a HUGE ground war involving many more lives of Japanese and Americans.

The European theatre would have ended, and the Yanks would have called in her allies from Europe to fight the 'nips'. It would included a sea-invasion from Russian into Japan, and a partitioning of Japan like we saw in post-war Germany.

As an aside, the movie "Voices of a Distant Star" which came out in 2003 posits that Japan has been partitioned into several sections due to events in the previous World War. It mentions nothing of an atomic bomb being dropped, so it is assumed the war ended against the Japanese.

[MrFelony]

ya i know a little about history and some close calls we had...pretty scary. i was hoping killfile would post in here eventually heh

[Killfile]

Well I don't have time for the lengthy tirade this really deserves, so I'll just hit the high points.

1 - Let's not mistake this discussion for a legitimate historical debate. Historians don't (or aren't supposed to) play the "what if" game. I'm going to give you my opinions here based on what I know to be true. There really are no right or wrong answers as to what would have happened as -- well -- it didn't and we can't possibly predict with any degree of accuracy what would have happened if things had fallen differently.

2 - WWII: Russia was on the verge of getting involved in the war with Japan. The speed and seriousness of a Soviet mobilization are up for debate. Personally I don't think that the USSR had the capability to field a real amphibious invasion force nor the ability to move the number and quality of troops across Asia necessary to make a difference. I think the US would have eventually invaded Japan, taken massive losses but supported the invasion with a continued air offensive and eventually conquered the islands. The post war peace would have been much less agreeable for the Japanese.

3 - The Korean War: Militaries like to use their toys. If we're assuming that the United States had but did not use the atom bomb in WWII we can safely assume that it would have been used in the Korean War against the Chinese when they got involved. Depending on China's reaction this would have either cemented a UN victory in Korea or just really pissed off the Chinese (who at that stage could afford the losses when MacArthur threatened to use the bomb).

4 - The Cold War: US use of a nuclear weapon against China would almost certainly have overpowered any anti-Khrushchev sentiment that Mao harbored. The Sino Soviet split of the 1960s would almost certainly have never happened. The US would have thus faced a united 2nd World rather than the divided Asian and European communist blocks of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Chinese economic support of the USSR's military in conjunction with the moderating influence of Maoist teachings on the Soviet leaders that followed Khrushchev could well have altered the political landscape which brought about the fall of the USSR in 1991.

3a - If the US had failed to develop a nuclear weapon in the second world war it is likely that Soviet seizures of German technologies would have brought nuclear technologies into Soviet hands much closer to the US discovery. A tightened arms race with no precedent for usage would have made the 1962 Cuban missile crisis much tenser as Kennedy's imagined missile gap (he thought the US had far fewer weapons than the soviets) could well have been a real issue. Possessed with a true upper hand, its difficult to know what Khrushchev, famous for his aggressive tendencies, would have done.

Anything you'd like more detail on?

[Shaka Zulu]

No thats fine, thanks (making it deliberately sound like I just ordered from you in McDonalds ).


Didnt take this debate seriously(too much what ifs scenarios steems from it), but its interesting to speculate about it.

[MrFelony]

thats enough to sate my curiousity...i thought I responded to this already but it appears that I didn't. I think the idea would make for a good novel or movie if hollywood didnt butcher it.

[Arngrim]

WIN

Nuff said (as a person attempting to be a lecturer/historian in the future) that's pretty much the truth. And again, I do believe it's speculated (possibly documented) the Japanese were building their own "doomsday" weapon. However, I do find a few things missing/needed to be added onto.


1)It should be noted most of the powers that be at Washington were relying on the Atom Bomb as a "Backup", true they launched it first, but people like McArthur were against the bomb dropping (some people on the decision even voted against dropping it on certain areas because they actually admired the beauty of Japan, go figure) and were even worried/assured the bomb would fail. They were well, rushing Russia. Stalin was ready to invade Japan, and let's just say again, land invasions=FAR more civilian casualties.

2)The Japanese really didn't care about the bomb drops (I can see it now, YES THEY DID!) In fact, the powers there largely disregarded the 2nd one dropped on Nagasaki. It was the eventual tides of control and the lack thereof that lead to the downfall and surrender of Japan, not the bomb drops. They were "added incentive", not the actual result of surrender.

3)The Bomb Drops equated nearly 70-80%+ of the Japanese civilian casualties. In comparison to the war in Europe, they lost -far- less civilians than their Axis allies, yet again, they got off -easy-.


4)The Nanking Massacre (Also known as the rape of Nanking) anytime a retard/idiot/king of douchebaggery (nobody here on this tread, take no offense) Brings up the topic of the A-Bomb being un-neccessary, I rub their faces into the raped and decapitated bodies of all those men, women, children and infants tortured/mutilated/burned/raped by the Japanese, the emassed piles of human flesh and gore that was on par if not -worse- than the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Their harsh treatment of American POWS and their general brutality during their island invasions and defense.

Obviously this is all IMHO, and I hate to sound "Cruel" but they deserved it and it's the common factor of being in a war. I feel in general are looked too highly upon after committing such atrocities during that time. It's like the episode of Family Guy "WE WERE ON VACATION!" for Germany, same with Japan, except again, it's far more "acceptable" to kill a Nazi than it is to even say "jap" (even when it's not meant as a derogatory title!)

It's not that I dislike the Japanese (far too many obvious reasons I don't) but just as a "while I'm at it", a lot of "wapanese" act as if America was some brutal vicious animal for nuking Japan, acting as if they Japanese weren't even at war with their own country and pretend they were just out having anime picnics and playing Yu-Gi-Oh! and that America is a bastard for disrupting them during the summoning of blue eyes white dragon!

5)We wouldn't have anything cool! It's more than obvious the influx of American Culture+Bomb dropping has spawned countless anime and video games plus technology. C'mon, we wouldn't have it, and we do need it.

[sima]

Nuking Japan was totaly UNNECESSARY, it was a deliberate genocide..
Recently a watched a documentary about how Japan was bombed with conventional weapons before the nukes, and was obliterated..
It was just a big show-off, a way for USA to say they run the show now..

[psi29a]

Nuking Japan was totaly UNNECESSARY, it was a deliberate genocide..
Recently a watched a documentary about how Japan was bombed with conventional weapons before the nukes, and was obliterated..
It was just a big show-off, a way for USA to say they run the show now..

Care to back that up with sources and facts please? We have posts in here already that fly in the face of your opinion.

[Arngrim]

Nuking Japan was totaly UNNECESSARY, it was a deliberate genocide..
Recently a watched a documentary about how Japan was bombed with conventional weapons before the nukes, and was obliterated..
It was just a big show-off, a way for USA to say they run the show now..

I'm gonna enjoy this a little too much.
Genocide is an obliteration of a race and or culture. The Japanese attempted this long before the bombing of Hiroshima. The estimated Death Toll for both bombings of your quote un quote "Genocide" range at about 210,000, the worlwide accepted estimate. Many Japanese view the bombings as un-necessary because figureheads/leaders were -covertly- discussing surrender. Keyword here, -covertly-. This may have been known, but America gave them something called an ultimatum. Try looking this up in the dictionary. Japan didn't accept the terms of uncondtional surrender and got nuked. It's a simple equation. You can morally debate it to all hell, but there are other factors to consider.

A)Operation Downfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
This is one of the more well known possibilities. That, and you completely seem to forget how ruthless the Russian Military could be. They were ready to descend from the north (And in fact, did) into Japan for a land invasion. America was also planning their own, and in fact, the Atomic Bomb was considered a fluke, so you're whole propaganda about it being "STAGED" is, no offense, bullshit. There is a small subliminal desire at that point (Which would later lead to the cold war) for America to display their nuclear power before other countires (namely Russia) would acquire them. This also goes against the fact that the Japanese themselves were developing their own superweapon.


B)The Nanking Massacre. You want to talk Genocide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
This is a single event that lasted in duration of 6 weeks. To date, the Japanese are largely exempt for these atrocities and continue to try and debate otherwise (As seen, "military" casualties, when it is -well- documented otherwise). You also seem to forget the general strategies of both Japanese defense and...


C)Starting the war. To put it simply, no source is needed for this. The Japanese declared war on America, not the other way around. Thus bringing this whole "debate" about whether the Japanese deserved it or not to a simple statement, "You started it, we end it."

Finally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

You speak as if the Japanese have done nothing to earn this. While it can be debated as to what level an "eye for an eye" goes through, again, if you're going to talk genocide, use some facts and do a little research on -both- sides.

[Killfile]

While the Japanese did some pretty horrific things in WWII, I'm afraid that the substance of your point -- that the Atomic Bombings did not constitute a genocide or a staged event -- is lost in your elaboration on Japanese warcrimes.

Let's get this one point out of the way: No matter what the Japanese did during the war, the very nature of Genocide, Warcrimes, and Crimes against Humanity makes them something that no nation or people that bring upon themselves. The Japanese didn't deserve to be the subjects of a Genocide, to have Warcrimes perpetrated against them, or to be the victims of Crimes against Humanity.

And they weren't.

The arguments that the US use of the Bomb was neither a genocide nor a staged power-grab are as follows - clear cut and to the point.

Not a Genocide: The United States used the Atomic Bomb as a weapon of war. Conventional bombs did substantial damage to Japan, this is true, but at great risk to pilots and crew. US understanding of nuclear weapons in the late summer of 1945 was limited to their status as very large bombs. Radiation and its long term effects was largely unstudied and unknown - particularly to military and policy making individuals. Thus the use of the atomic bomb can be equated morally with the use of strategic bombing in the region. This was par for the course in WWII. Moreover, the US lacked any substantive desire to eradicate or destroy the Japanese culture or people with these weapons. Though major population centers were hit - these were strategic targets of significance. Read the UN charter and the Rome Statutes on Genocide. You'll find them largely not in keeping with the events of August 1945.

Not a Demonstration of Power: While Truman famously remarked to Stalin at Potsdam that the US had a new and powerful weapon, the use of that weapon as a means to impress the Russians and keep them on the defensive after the war is unlikely. First and foremost, the United States used both of the nuclear weapons in its stock during the war. From a strategic standpoint, such a decision puts enormous trust in the Soviets. Afterall, the Soviets still had their enormous conventional force in Europe whereas the US was absent its nuclear trump card. Further, though numerous individuals in the British and American governments at the time were very concerned about the Soviets, many historians - including Phillip Zelikow - put the beginnings of the Cold War not in the ashes of WWII, but in the failed diplomatic attempts to strongarm the Soviets out of Iran. If we accept their judgement of the situation it's very difficult to pin the atomic bombings on Truman as part of a conflict that hadn't yet started.

[Bengal]

I was all geared up to post something in this thread, but I've been rendered completely unnecessary by Killfile and Arngrim. Sweet.