Quote:
Originally posted by lookout123
you are correct [concerning those dates], but the discussion had been going on for some time and the idea to use this weapon on german soil, if and when ready, was rejected on all sides.
|
Many discussions were ongoing. Would the bomb cause the atmosphere to burn. Whether it would be better to drop the bomb over the ocean in clear view of Japanese cities. Whether to just drop plutonium - to contaminate the city rather than kill so many.
But to understand a decision to drop the bomb, one must always go back to the strategic objective. Something that clearly existed for Afghanistan, Kuwait, and WWII. Something that did not exist for Iraq. Churchill and FDR spent much time together in 1942 defining many critical objectives that would become the guiding principles of WWII. The most fundamental was the number one objective - "unconditional surrender". This caused great fear within German High Command who understood early on where the war would be going after German declared war on the US. Germany accepted demands for "unconditional surrender". War over. The bomb that was developed much later would not be necessary.
But Japan just did not get it. Negotiations (if they existed) would have been for a settlement. That would violate the Allied Strategic Objective - "unconditional surrender". 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - a Japanese government that could not even consider unconditional surrender. Even three days after the Hiroshima bomb, still, the Japanese government remained in denial that a bomb existed and that "unconditional surrender" was even an option. With the second bomb, finally, the mindset at highest levels changed.
Rather unfortunately that so much energy must be wasted to change the 'attitude and knowledge' of but a few minds. But welcome to a fundamental principle throughout history - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.
Now the American perspective. We were at war with only one acceptable alternative. Total Japanese surrender. They would not. That leaves two tactical options: invasion or the bomb. Invasion was an ongoing plan with estimates of up to 0.5 million Allied casulties and even far more Japanese. One can present all kinds of reasons for the dropping of two bombs. But fundamental remains one major reason: the American objective of "unconditonal surrender". All options were only for that objective.
Take this back to the Iraq invasion. What is the strategic objective? Colin Powell was so obstinate for a strategic objective, clearly defined, in the 1990 Kuwait war that some (ie Scowcroft) feared they had the wrong generals. Scowcroft et al did not understand how absolutely critical a strategic objective, clearly defined by a smoking gun, is to the successfull achievement of military victory. Powell did understand which is why Anglo-American forces were so dominate in that war. Even worse, when objectives are defined by lies, we have disaster, torture, massacres, and scandel. It is inevitable. No clear and honest strategic objective (the reason why that smoking gun is so important) has repeatedly meant no victory for US military forces. We civilians must first and foremost honor and respect the military by first demanding that strategic objective. We must first demand a smoking gun. Sending in the military on anything less is to only disrepect the military. No true patriot sends in the military without a clearly defined stategic objective. Without same, there can be no exit strategy.