The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, 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." But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to — and did — relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to conclusion." If only Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place — the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war. the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanction A country can do anything it wants. There may be repercussions for what they do however. Yes, this is a trade sanction. Embargo. Blockade. Starving a country of oil when they are at war, is a pretty aggressive stunt IMO. No, but I am opposed to most if not all of them. You might be surprised to know, that I am against any action the UN takes to reprimand, censure or coerce Israel as well.
And, another way to look at it... Since the Japanese knew we would bomb them without unconditional surrender, the Emperor was foolish and put his nation at further risk, and avoidable terrible destruction and loss of life, by not stepping down. It's all in the spin, isn't it? Jim
You had said in an earlier post: I was saying, what makes us think we are better? What makes us think we have the moral authority to police the world? Just because we think so? And, my last sentence was: I guess you were responding to my saying: War is s state of desperate chaos between two opposing sides - the "last straw", so to speak. If you are not willing to do whatever it takes, then why are you fighting the war in the first place? Jim
I suspect not, since they still did not surrender after the first bomb. You would think the Emperor would have been on the phone post haste to Washington, but he was holding onto his position for just a little longer. What a shame. He knew we would bomb if he didn't agree to unconditional surrender, but it took two bombs for him to step down. I guess Japan was not so ready to surrender before we dropped the bomb. You can't put "conditions" on unconditional surrender. But, let's keep blaming the US. Jim
Thanks for the straight answer. I consider this a radically irresponsible position to take. Were it followed, our planet would have ended long ago. You don't have to answer, of course - have you ever been in the military?
Self-defense. There is no other moral justification for war in my opinion. Aggressive war is a crime. Are you familiar with Augustine's Just War Theory?
International Law on the Bombing of Civilians ARTICLE XXV The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html
You may think it irresponsible. To each his own. No, our planet would not have ended long ago. because the nation that took this approach would dominate. If we were to do this and tell anyone who messed with us we might do the same thing, they wouldn't do it. Now, that being we pull the foreign aid and use it to protect ourselves as I mentioned in that same post. And, yes. I served.
Oh, I never advocated aggressive war. And, self defense has many interpretations depending on which side you are on.
What did we unleash? Don't fuck with the US of A... (or her neighbors) That's what.. Again, end of story.
That's a shame. Makes it harder to end a war fast. And, if you have to fight a war, you want to end it as fast as you can with as little loss of life on your side and with the least amount of detriment to your nation. It worked in Japan, didn't it. Two bombs and the Emperor FINALLY gave in. Too bad he made us push it to that point. Jim
Exactly.. How many more millions would have died? If you want to dig deep into hindsight, you need to investigate the possible reality as well. Dropping those bombs, terrible as it may seem saved lives.
International Law on the Bombing of Civilians ARTICLE XXV The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html
August 8, 1945 The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html