NationStates Jolt Archive

I just wanna make a discussion on what would happen if the US dropped the Atomic bomb on Tokyo(the capital of Japan) in ww2. I'm a very young curious kid and I have intrest in history, so what would happen? I think that Japan would surrender easily. But many countries will criticize the US if they did nuke Tokyo because it is the heart of Japan and well there's many civilian casualties there. What do you think? There's more to say from me but that's all I wanna say because I need to go somewhere.

I'd never eat seafood again

Then the Japanese people wouldn't like it.

The outcome of the war would likely have been much worse and we would have an even crappier reputation than we already do now.

Tokyo was already pretty devastated by conventional bombing raids, I think, so really it wouldn't have had as much of an impact as dropping it on a relatively untouched city.

I just wanna make a discussion on what would happen if the US dropped the Atomic bomb on Tokyo(the capital of Japan).

Tokyo had already been firebombed to nothingness - the A-bomb wouln't have done much beyond that

I just wanna make a discussion on what would happen if the US dropped the Atomic bomb on Tokyo(the capital of Japan). I'm a very young curious kid and I have intrest in history, so what would happen? I think that Japan would surrender easily. But many countries will criticize the US if they did nuke Tokyo because it is the heart of Japan and well there's many civilian casualties there. What do you think? There's more to say from me but that's all I wanna say because I need to go somewhere.

During World War II? Japan surrendered quickly after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so they probably would have done the same if Tokoyo had been bombed. Then again, their government structure would have been wiped off the face of the Earth.

If the U.S. were to drop the atomic bomb on Tokoyo NOW, I'm sure the international community would condemn them quickly. Not to mention a coaltion of countries might retaliate against the U.S.

I meant world war 2 not nowadays. If it was nowadays, why do we have a reason to nuke em?

it wouldnt have been as effective as the one in hiroshima

of both atomic bombs dropped, the one on hiroshima was smaller than the one in nagasaki. However, since nagasaki was more built up, the effects were not nearly as devestating... or something like that

The entire world would hate us since Tokyo is such an economic microcosm these days.

As the object lesson was intended to force the Emperor to surrender, it wouldn't have done a lot of good to kill the Emperor in the object lesson. The confusion of a headless nation attempting to reorganize themselves whilst still fighting a war based on the old orders would have been far more catastropic.

Remember, in war the objective is to convince the opposition leadership that you mean what you say. Soldiers, civilians and cities are mere pawns in the game. If that weren't the case, nations wouldn't adopt anti-assassination policies.

I just wanna make a discussion on what would happen if the US dropped the Atomic bomb on Tokyo(the capital of Japan) in ww2. I'm a very young curious kid and I have intrest in history, so what would happen? I think that Japan would surrender easily. But many countries will criticize the US if they did nuke Tokyo because it is the heart of Japan and well there's many civilian casualties there. What do you think? There's more to say from me but that's all I wanna say because I need to go somewhere.


http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/japansur.htm

We'd also have less damn Japanese tourists wandering and flashing cameras in Times Square.

Tokyo had already been firebombed to nothingness - the A-bomb wouln't have done much beyond that

In the years leading up to World War II, Japan became the first power to attack civilians from the air. In 1932, Japanese warplanes bombed a worker district in Shanghai, China, an incident that produced worldwide outrage. The outrage did not stop Japan from bombing civilian areas of other Chinese cities.

In the late afternoon of April 26, 1937, German bombers and other warplanes attacked Guernica, a town of about 7,000 persons in northern Spain. This raid was part of the Spanish Civil War , fought just before World War II. The Spanish Republic was battling rebels led by Spanish General Francisco Franco. Hitler had sent a special air force unit to Spain to aid Franco and to test new military aircraft and bombing tactics.

In the assault on Guernica, German pilots left a small munitions factory and other possible military targets untouched. They aimed their explosive and incendiary (fire) bombs into the center of the town. A squadron of experimental aircraft dropped the first bombs on the plaza in front of the railroad station filled with war refugees. An eyewitness described what happened:

"A group of women and children. They were lifted high into the air, maybe 20 feet or so, and they started to break up. Legs, arms, heads, and bits and pieces flying everywhere."

Another wave of heavy bombers followed, destroying most of Guernica's buildings, even a church and hospital. People were blown up in their houses, crushed by collapsing structures, and set afire in the streets. A third wave of fighter planes then machine-gunned terrified men, women, and children as they ran for their lives. About 1,000 civilians were slaughtered during the three-hour assault.

Accounts of the attack on Guernica in French newspapers shocked the world. For the first time in history, bombing from the air had destroyed an entire town. The intentional slaughter of innocent people so enraged Pablo Picasso, the Spanish artist, that he immediately went to work on a painting based on the bombing attack. The painting, which he titled "Guernica," became an icon for the terror experienced by civilians in war.

World War I saw the first civilian casualties from air bombing. In 1915, the first-reported victim was an English child killed by a bomb dropped from a German zeppelin (an airship more rigid and larger than a blimp)

In May 1940, the Nazis invaded the Netherlands on their way to France. Easily overcoming Dutch defenders, the Germans still bombed the center of Rotterdam with explosive and fire bombs, killing tens of thousands.

From fall 1940 through spring 1941, Hitler's air force struck London and other English cities with terrifying night bombing raids. The bombing of London, the main target of German planes, cost the lives of 30,000 people.

They didn't need to. They had already firebombed the city a few weeks earlier and destroyed over 1/2 the city, killing 100 000+ in the one night. What was there to destroy?
Incidently, while the firebombing of Tokyo is well-known firebombing, did you know the US did the same to 67 Japanese cities, and as they were primarily wooden cities, the destruction rate ranged from the low 40s up to 98% destruction.

I meant world war 2 not nowadays. If it was nowadays, why do we have a reason to nuke em?
Three words:
Hentai Tentacle Porn :eek:

In contrast to the Bataan "death march"??

Sorry, maybe I'm a bit slow, but could you explain what this has to do with whether dropping an A-Bomb on a city already 1/2 destroyed would have been effective. I can't quite see the connection. The A-Bombs weren't revenge-driven, they were the US trying to minimise their losses.

Well, that would have been a hard thing to do right after Nagasaki and Hiroshima considering we only had 2 atomic bombs and we dropped both of them. Probably would have taken a little while to make another.

Or not....

Sorry, maybe I'm a bit slow, but could you explain what this has to do with whether dropping an A-Bomb on a city already 1/2 destroyed would have been effective. I can't quite see the connection. The A-Bombs weren't revenge-driven, they were the US trying to minimise their losses.

In contrast, meaning why argue "rules of war" when your opponent had no intentions of abiding by them? This is all semantics anyway. We didn't live during this time period. What would YOU have done to shut down the War in the Pacific? Sit back and wait? Let Japan end the war with us(which they tried to do via the Russians) and let them continue their aggression vs China & Britain? Technically, the Potsdam Conference tied our hands, Japan had to surrender unconditionally, nothing else!

No Surrender

Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings, and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender.

The Potsdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1475). On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Potsdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three - (War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda - adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

Later that day the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body - not the Big 6, not even the Emperor - that could rule as to whether Japan would surrender. And a unanimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208(43n)). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).

Japanese Hawks versus Japanese Doves

If the hawks in Japan's government surrendered only when the Emperor requested them to do so, what brought the Emperor to express his wish for surrender? For prior to August 1945, it was unprecedented for an Emperor to express a specific policy preference directly to the Cabinet (Butow, pg. 224). The role of the Emperor was to sanction decisions made by the Cabinet, whether he personally approved of them or not (Butow, pg. 167(1n)). As a god, he was considered to be above human politics.

Emperor Hirohito was persuaded to cross this line by the doves in Japan's government, particularly Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal Kido (the Emperor's closest advisor) and Foreign Minister Togo, a member of Japan's cabinet (Butow, pg. 206; Pacific War Research Society, JLD, pg. 28-30; Sigal, pg. 71 & 268).

If it was the doves, thru the Emperor, who brought surrender, what moved the doves to ask the Emperor to make his direct request to the government? For not only did this circumvent Japanese tradition, it also put the doves in danger of arrest and assassination and the government at risk of a possible coup, by members of the Japanese military.

The military had been arresting people who spoke out in favor of peace. (Pacific War Research Society, DML, pg. 167-168; Butow, pg. 75(56n) & 178-179; Sigal, pg. 228-229). Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki had personal experience with the military's extremism; he had been seriously wounded and nearly killed during an attempted coup in 1936 by a faction of the Army (Craig, pg. 137). A careless pursuit of peace could have resulted in the destruction of the peace movement and, perhaps, the end of any chance to preserve the throne.

In contrast, meaning why argue "rules of war" when your opponent had no intentions of abiding by them? This is all semantics anyway. We didn't live during this time period. What would YOU have done to shut down the War in the Pacific? Sit back and wait? Let Japan end the war with us(which they tried to do via the Russians) and let them continue their aggression vs China & Britain? Technically, the Potsdam Conference tied our hands, Japan had to surrender unconditionally, nothing else!

I'm sorry but why the rant? Did I ever say anywhere in my posts dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki were bad ideas? Now calm down, take deep breaths and pls check the thread heading again before your blood pressure rises any further. It's solely about whether dropping the Bomb on Tokyo would have been a good idea - NOT should the US dropped the Bomb on Japan.
BTW Bob McNamara who was helping co-ordinate the Bombing raids on Japan and suggests that his statistical analysis of the efficiency of the bombing raids lead to the policy of firebombing and perhaps the A-Bombing agrees that his actions and the actions of those above him qualify as War-crimes. But the victor always has the greater moral standing at the end of a war.

I'm sorry but why the rant? Did I ever say anywhere in my posts dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki were bad ideas? Now calm down, take deep breaths and pls check the thread heading again before your blood pressure rises any further. It's solely about whether dropping the Bomb on Tokyo would have been a good idea - NOT should the US dropped the Bomb on Japan.
BTW Bob McNamara who was helping co-ordinate the Bombing raids on Japan and suggests that his statistical analysis of the efficiency of the bombing raids lead to the policy of firebombing and perhaps the A-Bombing agrees that his actions and the actions of those above him qualify as War-crimes. But the victor always has the greater moral standing at the end of a war.

not a rant, but this discussion has led to "the-US-wasn't-excepting-any-Japanese-surrender-so-they-could-use-the-A-bombs" bullshit.

And considering my aunt is Japanese, I'm rather torn between whether we should have used them or not. But, like the say goes, "hindsight is always 20/20".

They didn't need to. They had already firebombed the city a few weeks earlier and destroyed over 1/2 the city, killing 100 000+ in the one night. What was there to destroy?
Incidently, while the firebombing of Tokyo is well-known firebombing, did you know the US did the same to 67 Japanese cities, and as they were primarily wooden cities, the destruction rate ranged from the low 40s up to 98% destruction.


Don't forget how we had to go and firebomb Dresden, Germany (another terrible firebombing tragedy)

Don't forget how we had to go and firebomb Dresden, Germany (another terrible firebombing tragedy)


I'm assuming "we" is the RAF....

Following German rocket attacks against London late in the war, almost 800 RAF bombers bombed Dresden, a center of German art, architecture, and culture. It had been untouched by previous Allied bombing raids. The attack's stated purpose was to disrupt German troop transports to the Russian front. But at least 35,000 civilians died, mainly by inhaling toxic gases created by the second major firestorm of the war.

"Quote:
Following German rocket attacks against London late in the war, almost 800 RAF bombers bombed Dresden, a center of German art, architecture, and culture. It had been untouched by previous Allied bombing raids. The attack's stated purpose was to disrupt German troop transports to the Russian front. But at least 35,000 civilians died, mainly by inhaling toxic gases created by the second major firestorm of the war."

I assume you are referring to the Dresden fire-storm. Well, war is terrible, isn´t it.
Good that today all major players in Europe are bound into NATO and EU. European and transatlantic integration keeps Europe together and prevents it from falling apart again into rivaling powers.
Unfortunatelly that is the case in many other parts of the world.
Probably an uni-polar world led by the US is going to end that. Probably: war is a common practise in human history. Even the old greec said: "War is the king and father of all things."

we would have needlessly killed innocent people and nothing else would have happened due to the fact that at the time there was anti eastern culture racism shown by western civilization

Mostly if Tokyo had been targeted, a large crater would have been blown in the middle of the shantytowns constructed on top of the burned-out remnants of about 90% of the city.

Tokyo was passed up not only because the US wanted to avoid killing the Emperor/destroying his palace and therefore symbolic authority, but because it was just not that good a target anymore anyways.

Tokyo was passed up not only because the US wanted to avoid killing the Emperor/destroying his palace and therefore symbolic authority, but because it was just not that good a target anymore anyways.
Not just symbolic. We had to keep him or his legitimate successor alive to negotiate the surrender. Without the Emperor's imprimatur, the Japanese people, and especially the Japanese military, wouldn't have accepted the surrender terms.

plus they would be killing a god, as the Japanese saw him, and killing a god is BAD!!!!

They didn't need to. They had already firebombed the city a few weeks earlier and destroyed over 1/2 the city, killing 100 000+ in the one night. What was there to destroy?
Incidently, while the firebombing of Tokyo is well-known firebombing, did you know the US did the same to 67 Japanese cities, and as they were primarily wooden cities, the destruction rate ranged from the low 40s up to 98% destruction.


See also, Dresden Germany.

Three words:
Hentai Tentacle Porn

Now that would have been a great loss. I mean for fighting the sexually repressed government, of course.

Actually, anime has really contributed heavily to my philosophical views. I would just be an ordinary anarchist without the ideas from anime.

Actually, anime has really contributed heavily to my philosophical views. I would just be an ordinary anarchist without the ideas from anime.

All the more incentive to destroy it, would make it much easier to bring the less fortunate back to reason and logic :D

As several have said, it wouldn't have had much effect.

Compare:
http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/rescript/Tokyo.gif
Tokyo after the fire bombing.
http://www.digischool.nl/kleioscoop/hiroshima.jpg
Hiroshima after the atomic bombing.
http://www.geocities.jp/chikushijiro2002/imagesMac-PC/ForPEACE/hypocenter.jpg
Nagasaki after the atomic bombing.

Total death tolls are estimates, but all three events killed in the neighborhood of 150,000.

The atomic bombings just did this more efficiently.

And for comparison:
http://members.aol.com/paesci/images/eqhztok.gif
The aftermath of the Great Kanto earthquake, which killed a similar number of people in Tokyo in 1923.

I've actually had this discussion with a few of my history professors, one of whom has written books on the modern Japanese empire (too lazy for links), and apparently it was agreed upon early on in the selection of the targets for the bombs that Tokyo was out. The reason was that the point of the bombs was to shock Japan into surrender, something that only the Emperor could do. If we dropped an atomic bomb on Tokyo and the Emperor was potentially killed, there would be no one to call for the Japanese people to surrender, and the hawkish military government, still ready to fight to the last man, would have no obstacles preventing them from proceeding towards that end.