General Discussion

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)

104. No, we had two....

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:25 AM

Aug 2013

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

There was no third atomic bomb ready to be dropped on August 12. It would be weeks before the next bomb was available (and possibly longer if weather conditions weren't right over the target). And it might have been weeks after that before a fourth bomb was operational. We were trying to create the illusion that we had an endless supply of bombs ready to drop on Japan, but that was simply not the case. Wasting a bomb over an uninhabited area would have been a strategic error.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IKE: "the Japanese were ready to surrender & it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing" [View all] Faryn Balyncd Aug 2013 OP

WTF would Eisenhower know? jberryhill Aug 2013 #1

Yeah. No military experience of judgment at all. Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 #2

This is, of course.... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #35

Funny how that works, isn't it? Good on you to point this out. Also, Stimson was no HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #38

As was pointed out downthread... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #81

There were plenty of people still alive that could have disputed his account. former9thward Aug 2013 #83

Harry Truman, for one...(nt) Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #85

Really? You think he was both senile and egotistical? How about those "predicted deaths" were the WinkyDink Aug 2013 #86

I didn't say he was senile... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #89

Earmarking for the next time someone objects to a General making all the decisions nt Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #3

K&R liberal_at_heart Aug 2013 #4

yet he also said this... WI_DEM Aug 2013 #5

Big difference Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #10

He was refering to small nuclear weapons, mainly fired from artillery arely staircase Aug 2013 #31

Nuclear artillery of the era were roughly equivalent in power to Fat Man and Little Boy. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #113

"Small atomic weapons" Scootaloo Aug 2013 #102

10 to 20 kilotons is not a "small" weapon. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #114

you have to recall, too, that Eisenhower was the allied commander in Europe not the Far East WI_DEM Aug 2013 #6

Ergo, rendering him less competent to make an opinion than a DUer circa 2013 jberryhill Aug 2013 #7

I'm lovin you today Jberry! whatchamacallit Aug 2013 #12

Yee-ouch! Iggo Aug 2013 #16

Seems to be many a DU'er in 2013 dbackjon Aug 2013 #25

Yes we did bomb Dresden but.. Tagurrit Aug 2013 #94

You were good until the last sentence dbackjon Aug 2013 #97

And yet, ultimately Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #13

Like the "who's the best second baseman of all time" question... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #37

2 -10 what's the difference.. Tagurrit Aug 2013 #96

No, we had two.... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #104

MacAuthur and Truman's Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy also opposed the bomb. former9thward Aug 2013 #84

Also the scumbag who ... Koios Aug 2013 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Aug 2013 #9

Bah, what would he know! Rex Aug 2013 #11

How 'bout we pick this quote instead? jeff47 Aug 2013 #14

Surrender of Japan joshcryer Aug 2013 #52

If you think that Eisenhower would say something in 1963 that would antagonize our best cold war... JVS Aug 2013 #15

+1 JustAnotherGen Aug 2013 #22

So why didn't Truman dispute the account if he said something else? former9thward Aug 2013 #88

Why would Truman want to antagonize an ally any more than Eisenhower? JVS Aug 2013 #90

Yes I read it. former9thward Aug 2013 #98

And you know that nobody contradicted Eisenhower how? JVS Aug 2013 #100

The same way I know what Eisenhower said. former9thward Aug 2013 #103

I'm going to need some evidence of the conspiracy you claim exists JVS Aug 2013 #106

It is your conspiracy. former9thward Aug 2013 #109

You're the one making it up. I'm just saying that I have good reason to doubt Eisenhower's word. JVS Aug 2013 #112

Not just Ike, but General MacArthur said the same thing. bvar22 Aug 2013 #17

got a link to back that claim up re; not a military decision. nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #26

Well, Geek, Lets take a look at the HISTORY. bvar22 Aug 2013 #46

What proof do you have that Japan was ready to surrender, disarm, subject itself geek tragedy Aug 2013 #49

What proof do I have? bvar22 Aug 2013 #54

The Japanese War Council was split 3-3 after Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #59

a heaven05 Aug 2013 #95

The links you demand are at the bottom of the OP. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #115

The decision had been made that an invasion would occur if Japan did not geek tragedy Aug 2013 #119

and MacArthur wanted to use them in Korea... dionysus Aug 2013 #61

Bingo! sgtbenobo Aug 2013 #101

So many of the Bomb Defenders today used "Armchair Warrior" as a put down.... Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #18

Happens every year. Iggo Aug 2013 #92

My dad was on Saipan waiting for the order to firebomb Tokyo ... ananda Aug 2013 #19

Yes, perhaps, but for sure if the Japanese had possessed an atomic bomb.. DCBob Aug 2013 #20

Yes and perhaps we should not have been so quick to emulate the worst of their cruel leadership Dragonfli Aug 2013 #24

I think the goal was to eliminate their "cruel leadership" not emulate them. DCBob Aug 2013 #41

by nuking civilians rather than attacking the leadership? What a strange tactic - Dragonfli Aug 2013 #47

I think the nukes effectively eliminated their "cruel leadership" once they surrendered. DCBob Aug 2013 #67

Would have been less sociopathic to blow up the Emperor and not hundreds of thousands of civilians Dragonfli Aug 2013 #70

I doubt "blowing up the Emperor" would have stopped them. DCBob Aug 2013 #72

I've read that the percentage of those unable to experience "empathy".. bvar22 Aug 2013 #124

I think the complete disregard for the deaths of women, children and grannies shown on this board Dragonfli Aug 2013 #21

Your post was hidden for personally attacking me. tumtum Aug 2013 #27

I did not personally attack you Dragonfli Aug 2013 #34

Really? tumtum Aug 2013 #36

An honest evaluation of your empathy free and cowardly defense of the deaths of several thousands of Dragonfli Aug 2013 #39

Spin it any way you want. tumtum Aug 2013 #40

Post removed Post removed Aug 2013 #43

Ahhhh, so your one of these. tumtum Aug 2013 #48

+10000000000000000000000000000 Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #30

I'm a Democratic Socialist and radically anti-war. That said, I am not an absolute pacifist HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #44

That is not only a valid question to ask me, it is a very good one. Dragonfli Aug 2013 #62

How Many Japanese Civilians... Deacon Blue Aug 2013 #73

We will never know, many generals felt there were alternatives to using atrocities as a tactic Dragonfli Aug 2013 #79

It makes a tremendous amount of sense and I am also no expert on what HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #123

If they had one and dropped it on us treestar Aug 2013 #50

Not at all, I do not see their women as less human than our own, I condemn them equally for evil. Dragonfli Aug 2013 #63

It IS that simple, bvar22 Aug 2013 #93

Sickening, isn't it? DeSwiss Aug 2013 #80

Yes, vomit inducing for those of us still possessing souls.... Dragonfli Aug 2013 #82

+1 Good observations. Needed to be said. Skeeter Barnes Aug 2013 #111

Too bad we didn't have one a year sooner. roamer65 Aug 2013 #23

Britain thought it would have the bomb by 1943, and Churchill DavidDvorkin Aug 2013 #28

Yet the Japanese were in many ways much crueler dbackjon Aug 2013 #29

The cruelty sweepstakes will have no winner. The USSR lost 20 million fighting HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #45

That's when it was over for the Nazis. roamer65 Aug 2013 #58

Well, in hindsight, I think you are right. However, at the time, it was far more HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #121

dropping the bombs had less to do with defeating japan than arely staircase Aug 2013 #32

It was the 40's form of "Shock and Awe"....in 2003 it was televised over Iraq. madfloridian Aug 2013 #33

Of course it wasn't necessary. The US just wanted to see what would happen - we experimented on the Flaxbee Aug 2013 #42

Others disagree with him, including other generals treestar Aug 2013 #51

No, The Japanese were in August 1945, BillyRibs Aug 2013 #53

His farwell speech was a warning orpupilofnature57 Aug 2013 #55

An awful thing...but, Hulk Aug 2013 #56

Old arguments. Stinger35 Aug 2013 #57

My pop remembers it differently left is right Aug 2013 #60

Probably from the sound of your Dads story, orpupilofnature57 Aug 2013 #117

Ya, like they were so quick to surrender after 1st bomb. lobodons Aug 2013 #64

why heaven05 Aug 2013 #65

With all due respect to genuine heroes... cab67 Aug 2013 #66

K&R felix_numinous Aug 2013 #68

You Are Forgetting Okinawa Deacon Blue Aug 2013 #69

How could we have been so sure Japan was honestly ready to surrender? DCBob Aug 2013 #71

Here's what made the Japanese accept unconditional surrender. roamer65 Aug 2013 #74

+1 DCBob Aug 2013 #77

I like Ike. PufPuf23 Aug 2013 #75

There are a number of good reasons to like Ike, including his statement about Nixon when asked AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #110

" ...wars cannot be won by destroying women and children" Admiral Leahy Kaleva Aug 2013 #76

More: Bonobo Aug 2013 #78

Ike might not have hated Truman, but it's a point of fact that he deeply disliked him BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #87

There are many photos of them being respectful to one another. AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #108

Yes...recently read "Going Home to Glory," by his grandson David BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #118

Rec and 2nd! nt jimlup Aug 2013 #91

God bless Ike LittleBlue Aug 2013 #99

The Ike stuff is rather self serving dsc Aug 2013 #105

It's not just Ike saying these things... usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #107

Too bad DU wasn't around back then. Niceguy1 Aug 2013 #116

I think many felt guilty about being a part of this and spoke out publilcy.. DCBob Aug 2013 #120

eisenhower is the same guy who was critical of the military industrial complex he helped to build... Javaman Aug 2013 #122