I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.

As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including Japanese civilians.

And there things sat for 78 years.

Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of us was that civilized.

It is never too late to catch up on my humility

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:48:24 PM UTC-6, David Kleinecke wrote:
> I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.
>
> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including Japanese civilians.
>
> And there things sat for 78 years.
>
> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of us was that civilized.
....

The people where Japan was still fighting, in China and elsewhere, and in Korea and Taiwan
wouldn't have thanked us.

Still, maybe there ways to avoid dropping one or both bombs.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 19:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:48:24 PM UTC-6, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.
>>
>> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including Japanese civilians.
>>
>> And there things sat for 78 years.
>>
>> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of us was that civilized.
> ...
>
> The people where Japan was still fighting, in China and elsewhere, and in Korea and Taiwan
> wouldn't have thanked us.
>
> Still, maybe there ways to avoid dropping one or both bombs.

I suspect the truth lies in the glaringly obvious difference in who
Hirohito blamed for his decision to end the war in his Jewel Voice
Broadcast.

Whom he blamed when he told the Army/Navy was completely different from
whom he blamed when he told the people of Japan why he surrendered.

Therein lies the truth.

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 11:48:24 UTC+10, David Kleinecke wrote:
> I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.
>
> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including Japanese civilians.
>
> And there things sat for 78 years.
>
> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of us was that civilized.
>
> It is never too late to catch up on my humility

That may be the secret of your longevity.

David Kleinecke wrote:

> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including Japanese civilians.
>
> And there things sat for 78 years.
>
> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of us was that civilized.

I don't think that that was an option. I tend to think that it was
possible not to use the bombs, but I also tend to accept that the first
one was necessary. The mindset of the Japanese was such that they
wouldn't have stopped fighting unless forced to do so.

However, USA had total control over the sea in 1945, and they could have
blocked supplies to the islands which were occupied by the Japanese and
made it difficult for the Japanese islands themselves.

Such a policy might however have dragged on for quite some time.

I see no reason to drop the second bomb.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 2023-04-26 01:48:21 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

> I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen
> didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that
> there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that
> would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst
> but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.
> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including
> Japanese civilians.
>
> And there things sat for 78 years.
>
> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never
> used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home.

That approach worked so well with Gerorge W. Bush.

> But none of us was that civilized.
>
> It is never too late to catch up on my humility

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 15:24:43 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 11:48:24 UTC+10, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.
> >
> > As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including Japanese civilians.
> >
> > And there things sat for 78 years.
> >
> > Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of us was that civilized.
> >
> > It is never too late to catch up on my humility
> That may be the secret of your longevity.
If they had to drop atom bombs upon Germans, they would have dropped them upon milirary targets.

In article <u2ah83$19ct3$1@dont-email.me>, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> David Kleinecke wrote:

> > As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including
> > Japanese civilians.
> >
> > And there things sat for 78 years.
> >
> > Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never
> > used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none
> > of us was that civilized.

> I don't think that that was an option. I tend to think that it was
> possible not to use the bombs, but I also tend to accept that the first
> one was necessary. The mindset of the Japanese was such that they
> wouldn't have stopped fighting unless forced to do so.

> However, USA had total control over the sea in 1945, and they could have
> blocked supplies to the islands which were occupied by the Japanese and
> made it difficult for the Japanese islands themselves.

> Such a policy might however have dragged on for quite some time.

> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.

As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 2023-04-26 06:44:19 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>
> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.

That was the view of the "New Left" students at Berkeley in the 1960s.
I listened to an argument in which a group of them put that point of
view to my supervisor, Dan Koshland, who had participated in the
Manhattan Project (in a not very exalted position). He said that there
was a lot of argument about it at the time, and that it had been
important that the Japanese didn't think the Hiroshima bomb was the
only one the Americans had got, and the Nagasaki bomb was essential to
get over the idea that it was just the second of a series, and that
there were lots more to come if necessary.

I'm not saying that that argument was correct, just that it was held by
someone with actual knowledge of the decision making.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Le 26/04/2023 à 08:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2023-04-26 06:44:19 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>>
>> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
>
> That was the view of the "New Left" students at Berkeley in the 1960s. I
> listened to an argument in which a group of them put that point of view
> to my supervisor, Dan Koshland, who had participated in the Manhattan
> Project (in a not very exalted position). He said that there was a lot
> of argument about it at the time, and that it had been important that
> the Japanese didn't think the Hiroshima bomb was the only one the
> Americans had got, and the Nagasaki bomb was essential to get over the
> idea that it was just the second of a series, and that there were lots
> more to come if necessary.
>
> I'm not saying that that argument was correct, just that it was held by
> someone with actual knowledge of the decision making.

Was Japan believed to be developing an A-bomb? If so, it might have been
thought important to bring the War to a close before they succeeded.

It seems they were trying, but failed:

'New evidence of Japan’s effort to build atom bomb at the end of WWII' -
<https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html> :
"Chieko Takeuchi, widow of the atomic scientist, recalled her husband
saying, 'If we’d built the bomb first, of course we would have used it.
I'm glad, in some ways, that our facilities were destroyed.'"

'Japanese Atomic Bomb Project' -
<https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/japanese-atomic-bomb-project/>

charles wrote:

>> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
>
> As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.

I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese might
have come to their senses some days later.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 2023-04-26 08:35:54 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:

> charles wrote:
>
>>> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
>>
>> As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.
>
> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese
> might have come to their senses some days later.

That was part of the argument that I mentioned. It was seriously
discussed by the decision makers of the time, who thought that three
days was just right to convince that Japanese that there were plenty
more to come, if necessary.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> That was part of the argument that I mentioned. It was seriously
> discussed by the decision makers of the time, who thought that three
> days was just right to convince that Japanese that there were plenty
> more to come, if necessary.

I appreciate the facts that you supply.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 26/04/2023 07:24, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 11:48:24 UTC+10, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.
>>
>> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including Japanese civilians.
>>
>> And there things sat for 78 years.
>>
>> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of us was that civilized.
>>
>> It is never too late to catch up on my humility
>
> That may be the secret of your longevity.

That is a noble way of framing David's personal feelings. However, as he
says, he was a simple member of the navy.

His political masters at the time most probably had other considerations
- including revenge for Pearl Harbor. The timing of that devastating
attack - which the US government felt was sneaky, if not illegal - left
a bitter taste in the mouth of many an American military man. Hiroshima
& Nagasaki were, in that context, a way of saying 'fuck you' to the
Japanese.

On 26/04/23 16:44, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> David Kleinecke wrote:
>
>> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives -
>> including Japanese civilians.
>>
>> And there things sat for 78 years.
>>
>> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and
>> never used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home.
>> But none of us was that civilized.
>
> I don't think that that was an option. I tend to think that it was
> possible not to use the bombs, but I also tend to accept that the
> first one was necessary. The mindset of the Japanese was such that
> they wouldn't have stopped fighting unless forced to do so.
>
> However, USA had total control over the sea in 1945, and they could
> have blocked supplies to the islands which were occupied by the
> Japanese and made it difficult for the Japanese islands themselves.
>
> Such a policy might however have dragged on for quite some time.
>
> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.

They had enough material to make two bombs. Would you want them to waste
the second one, after all the expense and effort of building it?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 26/04/23 19:16, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-04-26 08:35:54 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>
>> charles wrote:
>>
>>>> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
>>>
>>> As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb
>>> 1.
>>
>> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese
>> might have come to their senses some days later.
>
> That was part of the argument that I mentioned. It was seriously
> discussed by the decision makers of the time, who thought that three
> days was just right to convince that Japanese that there were plenty
> more to come, if necessary.

Which was false, of course. They couldn't refine enough uranium for a
third bomb.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 26/04/2023 09:14, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-04-26 01:48:21 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
>
>> I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen
>> didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that
>> there was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that
>> would be a bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst
>> but we anticipated plenty of navy casualties.
>> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including
>> Japanese civilians.
>>
>> And there things sat for 78 years.
>>
>> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never
>> used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home.
>
> That approach worked so well with Gerorge W. Bush.

Are you suggesting George W. should have dropped a nuclear bomb, and
*then* declared 'mission accomplished'?

The context is all important here. In 2003, circumstances were very
different than they were in 1945.

>
>>  But none of us was that civilized.
>>
>> It is never too late to catch up on my humility
>
>

On 2023-04-26 09:43:09 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 26/04/23 19:16, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-04-26 08:35:54 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>>
>>> charles wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
>>>>
>>>> As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb
>>>> 1.
>>>
>>> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese
>>> might have come to their senses some days later.
>>
>> That was part of the argument that I mentioned. It was seriously
>> discussed by the decision makers of the time, who thought that three
>> days was just right to convince that Japanese that there were plenty
>> more to come, if necessary.
>
> Which was false, of course. They couldn't refine enough uranium for a
> third bomb.

Yes indeed, but the Japanese didn't know that.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

In article <u2anpa$1ab86$2@dont-email.me>,
Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> charles wrote:

> >> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
> >
> > As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.

> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese might
> have come to their senses some days later.

It needed a second bomb to make that happen

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 9:35:59 AM UTC+1, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> charles wrote:
>
> >> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
> >
> > As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.
> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese might
> have come to their senses some days later.

What swung it was the change in the surrender terms. The Japanese
could not accept "unconditional surrender" because it might have cost
them their Emperor. Surrender of the army and navy was acceptable.

charles wrote:

>> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese might
>> have come to their senses some days later.
>
> It needed a second bomb to make that happen

We'll never know if that is true.

--
Bertel, Denmark

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> writes:
> In article <u2anpa$1ab86$2@dont-email.me>, Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> charles wrote:
>
>> >> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
>> >
>> > As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.
>
>> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days. The Japanese might
>> have come to their senses some days later.
>
> It needed a second bomb to make that happen

That's an instance of /post hoc ergo propter hoc/. Just because the
decision was announced after the second bomb doesn't mean it was
because of the second bomb. I've seen as many pundits saying that
Japan was already preparing to surrender before Nagasaki as saying
they weren't. I've also seen memos indicating that the Americans
were absolutely desperate to get that second bomb dropped, as it
was *completely* different technology, and therefore an essential
new test.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was in the US Navy in the last days of the war. We the common seamen
> didn't know the war was going to end so abruptly. We expected that there
> was going to be an invasion of Japan and we expected that that would be a
> bloody operation. As sailors we expected to avoid the worst but we
> anticipated plenty of navy casualties.

Yes, the propaganda argument was well prepared,
while the bomb was the best kept secret.

> As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including
> Japanese civilians.

Indeed, Hiroshima stands at the root of of a myth
that has been quite damaging ever since:
that nuclear weapons have their uses,
and that they may actually be useful.

The truth was just the opposite, the war had been won already,
and it was dragged out to allow the bombs to be used.
The nukes didn't only kill Japanese,
the dragging out of the war also killed prisoners in camps
who died before they could be liberated.

> And there things sat for 78 years.

For you perhaps.
Others already saw it before the bombs were used,
or shortly thereafter.
You are not the first American to ask: 'was this really necessary?'
> Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never
> used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none of
> us was that civilized.

The Japanese knew that they had lost the war in 1944,
had been looking for ways to end the war since Januari 1945.
And the Americans (having broken the Japanese diplomatic codes)
were well aware of it.

> It is never too late to catch up on my humility

It is very good of you.
The next step, and one that is still one step too far
for most Americans, is to admit that it was a war crime.

Jan

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> charles wrote:
>
> >> I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
> >
> > As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.
>
> I have read that too, but USA waited only three days.

The USA didn't wait at all.
Truman signed an order for the used of both weapons
as soon as operational circumstances permitted.

> The Japanese might have come to their senses some days later.

Yes, but that might have wasted the opportunity
for another live weapons test.
So there was a need to hurry to get that second bomb in,

Jan

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <u2ah83$19ct3$1@dont-email.me>, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > David Kleinecke wrote:
>
> > > As we saw it then the atomic bomb saved millions of lives - including
> > > Japanese civilians.
> > >
> > > And there things sat for 78 years.
> > >
> > > Now I see that there was another road we could have followed and never
> > > used the bomb. We could have declared victory and gone home. But none
> > > of us was that civilized.
>
> > I don't think that that was an option. I tend to think that it was
> > possible not to use the bombs, but I also tend to accept that the first
> > one was necessary. The mindset of the Japanese was such that they
> > wouldn't have stopped fighting unless forced to do so.
>
> > However, USA had total control over the sea in 1945, and they could have
> > blocked supplies to the islands which were occupied by the Japanese and
> > made it difficult for the Japanese islands themselves.
>
> > Such a policy might however have dragged on for quite some time.
>
> > I see no reason to drop the second bomb.
>
> As I understood it, the Japanese refused to surrender after Bomb 1.

That is a popular myth,

Jan