On Nov 4, 11:35?am, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:00:20 -0800, Chuck Gould

wrote:
So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

We still had the problem of convincing the Japanese army they were
beat.
They had been raised with the "no surrender" ethic and without the
horrible spectre of the A bombs I am not sure we would have been
successful in getting them to stop fighting.

You may be right. Or not- from the aspect that these troops were so
loyal to the Emperor that they would follow his orders to use suicide
tactics in battle. Why would an army that valued blind obedience not
lay down its arms when ordered to do so by the same Emperor?
Not having been there in the day, I don't know.

I'm only remarking on what Douglas MacArthur said his opinion was at
that time. Somehow, I am foolish enough to place a very high
credibilty in the opinions of professional military commanders when it
comes to matters of specific strategy to win a war. Even when they are
wrong, at least they are operating in their area of expertise- unlike
civilian CIC's, congressmen, talk show hosts, and everybody else who
tries to run a war from an armchair. :-)