Search the Community

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives. By Washington's Blog / globalresearch.ca Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives. But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56): General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said: Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380): Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441): General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71): Moreover (pg. 512): Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500): Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said: War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75. He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324): General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publiclyshortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan: The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45): Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote: Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21. Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said(pg. 359): Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example: British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.” On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.” Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value? Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities. For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325): General George Marshall agreed: Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives. As historian Doug Long notes: Politicians Agreed Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142): Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32): Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan? If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures? One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys: However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan. Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently: Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defensein 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb: Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333). The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area. The Real Explanation? History.com notes: New Scientist reported in 2005: John Pilger points out: We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz: http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/ In Summary: 1. Japan was going to surrender. The bombs were not necessary. 2. USA could have dropped the bomb on a military target, or a sparsely populated area, but chose to drop it on populated cities with no military value 3. It was done to scare Russia. It had nothing to do with ending WW2 or saving lives

This is a paper on the Islamic impermissibility of using WMDs / nuclear weapons by Ayatollah Abolqasem Alidoost. It was tweeted by IRI foreign minister Muhammad Javad Zarif a few days ago. Excerpt: I'm wondering whether the ahadith prohibiting the use of poison explicitly mention the rationale, i.e. destructive impact and lack of discrimination, or whether these reasons were suggested/inferred by the Fuqaha. Thanks