SonicFlyer

First off, the US government shouldn't be telling people who they can and can't do business with. But that's another discussion for another time.

However, to answer your question, yes under international law, when a government sanctions another country, the government being sanctioned can absolutely of course consider that an act of war. They usually don't, but sometimes they do (Japan). Especially given that the sanctions had a significant and detrimental effect on the Japanese economy.

These days that happens a bit less often because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

SonicFlyer

Let me refer you back to post #17 where the following individuals were either against the bombing, or said that it had no effect on the outcome of the war:

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower

Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz

Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.

Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold

Adm. William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff


Link:
Anyone see "Oppenheimer" film?

badflaps

Maybe that is what they said, but the official though didn't change for over 20 years. My F-100 squadron alone had 4 hydrogen ready to roll 24/7, multiplied by 4 USAFE wings, had the balloon gone up, Japan would have been little more than a side note in history.

DeltaboundRedux

You have to read “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner” by Daniel Ellsberg.

Among other things, he worked for the RAND corporation in the 50’s and 60’s planning/studying decision making scenarios when information is very sparse. (I.E., a first strike scenario)

Specifically, he was given high level authority to interview F-100 commands with nuclear strike missions in the Pacific theatre. Concerns about daily radio dead zones led to discussions about how pretty much all the F-100 pilots knew how to launch without two factor verification.

Also there was a less than zero chance the Mark 28s could detonate by accident, so the whole SAC bomber B-52s “fly to fail safe” wasn’t practiced by the F series…too dangerous.

Good stuff. Very few today appreciate just how hair trigger everything was. The Hollywood thing about the President authorizing everything was always a bit of a Hollywood fantasy; really went out the window when the Soviets built ICBMs.

John Carr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFkazjodpeQ

JamesNoBrakes

None of that changes the facts. They didn't surrender.

DeltaboundRedux

Absolute classic.

Deny them all your POE.

SonicFlyer

Yes because the US government wouldn't accept their surrender.

DeltaboundRedux

I don't believe it's the slightest bit controversial to say that by demanding "unconditional surrender" from both the Germans and the Japanese, WWII was extended by months, if not another year.

Plenty of Allied generals certainly thought it at the time. Never been controversial since.

Nor was deliberate mass targeting of civilian populations by firebombs to "break the enemies will to fight". Nuke or no nuke, that campaign wasn't going to stop. Death from the skies by the 10s of thousands on a regular basis.

Personally would rather go up in a quick flash of light than burned to death in a building I can't escape with my family, or starve to death over a month because the whole cities infrastructure has been destroyed.

(also didn't really work, something the Allies knew by 1943. War is hell, heavy handed government propaganda to "hate the Hun, hate the Jap" works. I don't think anyone really cared at the time.)

Hubcapped

Another point that has yet to be mentioned is stalin. The bomb(s) were also a warning that we would/could use it when pushed. Our distrust of russia was a slow build in the 30’s to finally be a significant geopolitical concern when they invaded western ukraine (then poland) in 1939, and some baltic states in 40.

not discounting the horror, but id rather see japanese civilians die than 1 million GIs and/or a continuation of WW2 with russia. As ive read before you cannot just say its stalins war or the emperor’s war, civilians hold responsibility as well, to include the current conflict.

im not advocating having used the weapon on civilians, maybe a bomb off shore to give them something to chew on would have worked. Or potentially on a military base etc…..Who knows. Patience and grace were long exhausted by that point and none of us can really say what we would do in that situation