Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[jt1]

Nuking Japan, undoubtedly, saved tens of thousands of American lives. But why did we feel the need to invade Japan? We had already destroyed their millitary as well as their economy. Would it not have been best if we just moved our troops out of the region and claimed victory?

[wh1t3bread]

Would Stalin have removed his Declaration of War against Japan and sent his forces home from Manchuria and North Korea?

If not, then I think that is reason enough for the US to have taken care of Japan itself.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Would Stalin have removed his Declaration of War against Japan and sent his forces home from Manchuria and North Korea?


[/ QUOTE ]


Good point! My post was in the form of a question 'cause I don't have a firm opinion on the matter. However let me play devils advocate.

1) We have the bomb. Who cares what Stalin does, we can defend ourselves.

2)Russian didn't have the bomb so Russia would have needed to invade Japan. It's very likely that they would have failed. But even if they would have won, they would not have been too weak from the effort to dominate any othe part of the globe.

3)We'd have the entire Pacific under our economic influence. Japan and Korea are just two countries out of many in that area. It can be said that there weren't strategicaly important enough to drop the bomb over.


Thoughts.....

[lehighguy]

What would happen 10 years later, 20 years later?

[jt1]

first off, i meant to say that russia would have been too weak to dominate any other part of the globe.

[ QUOTE ]
What would happen 10 years later, 20 years later?

[/ QUOTE ]


That depends if America would have invested in the Phillipines and Indonesia. My guess is that they would in order to buffer a potentially re-emergant imperial Japan or communist Russia.

Another thing to consider is that Japan was considered a potential lift off point for an Eastern invasion of Russia should Russian attempt a takeover of Western Europe.

[theweatherman]

I think you greatly under estimte the strenght of the russian army. They rolled over the Japanese in manchuria in a matter of a few moths, something the chinese had been tyring to do for a few decades.

Basically the end of WWII was a land grab for the sides in the ensuing cold war. We wanted japan on our side.

Also demonstrating the awesome power America now held was a good way to keep the soviets in the east of Europe until it was rebulit.

[jcx]

Don't underestimate revenge as a motive. The Allies were not about to let Japan spend 35 years (Going back to their conquest of Korea in 1910) looting, raping and wreaking havoc in Asia and then allow them to shrug their shoulders and say no hard feelings. Also, I believe the American public wanted their pound of flesh in return for what happened at Pearl Harbor. A price needed to be paid, especially by Japan's top brass.

[Dynasty]

If you're going to fight a war, don't screw around with it. Destroy your enemy. Don't just hurt them and let them rebuild.

[Peter666]

America for four years had absolute power over every nation in the world thanks to the atom bomb. What does Truman do with it: bomb civilian targets in Japan, but do absolutely nothing with the USSR.

The Americans could have shoved the Russians back where they came from on the Western Front, and on the East the atom bomb would have contained communism easily. The result would have been no cold war, no war in southeast asia, no rape of Eastern Europe, no chance of mutually assured destruction, and less problems in the Middle East.

I admire Patton and McCarthur who had foresight and would have done something. Truman was a horrible man with screwy principles and I am glad he is burning in Hell. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to fight a war, don't screw around with it. Destroy your enemy. Don't just hurt them and let them rebuild.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there are a few caveats. Favorable peace terms can be very beneficial. And if your opponent thinks you've got more than you actually do, bring it to the table.