What is your take on the A-bomb droppings on Japan?

[KingKnudthebloodthirsty]

I'm starting a research paper on whether or not it was right to nuke Japan. Obviously I'm doing alot of research, though I already know I alot of this from watching Tv and reading books. But I still like to your guys opinion on was it really necessary to drop the bomb on Japan. Those that supported the decision claimed that Japan won't surrender if we didn't bomb them and an invasion of the home islands would've cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, about the amount of all U.S. troops lost in WW2 up to that point. Opponents said that Japan was on the verge of collapse, and that since the Soviets are already at war with Japan, Japan would've collapsed easily and there is really no need to drop the Atom bombs on them.

Please vote in my poll on whether or not you think the Atomic bomb was necessary. Thanks!

[CBR]

Japan had been totally defeated yet it seems they were ready to fight on and force USA to invade Japan itself. IMO Stalin entering the fray and the nuclear bombs were both needed to show the Japanese leadership the utter futility in keeping on fighting.


CBR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Given the intelligence at the time and the most probable scenarios either way, the United States had little choice.

[Samurai Waki]

I shudder to think how many would have died in an invasion scenario. If Okinawa was any sort of indicator, the nukes probaby did less overall damage.

[A Very Super Market]

Japan could collapse. It was a matter of time. And a matter of bodies, far more than that of the bombings, and possibly that of an invasion as well. Starvation and conventional bombs (Which worked well enough of their own) doesn't seem like a very pretty prospect either.

[miotas]

Those that supported the decision claimed that Japan won't surrender if we didn't bomb them and an invasion of the home islands would've cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, about the amount of all U.S. troops lost in WW2 up to that point.

But instead they decided to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

[Strike For The South]

Morally it was wrong
Ethically it was wrong

But it was the best choice for the USA on a pure numbers standpoint.

[Jolt]

Considering Stalin was already planning on invading Hokkaido in October and the USA had lend-leased some 90 ships to the USSR, Soviet sailors been trained to operate the American lend-leased ships in Alaska by US Coast Guard Sailors. If the Atomic bombs failed, Stalin would have certainly moved and invaded the North of Japan. Probably the overall result would be the creation of a Communist North Japan and a Capitalist South Japan, à la West/East Germany; North/South Korea; North/South Vietnam.

There were slated to be around 500,000 USA soldiers and nearly 4,000 army, navy, and marine aircraft that would be packed into the small island of Okinawa for Olympic alone, not counting the thousands of ships, large and small which would have been crowded in what was now Buckner Bay or around the tiny island. Typhoon Louise was an abnormality, an aberration, a fluke, a one in a million. Navy meteorologists predicted that the out of season storm would (after they recognized its existence), sweep northward, pass between Okinawa and Formosa, and die out in the East China sea. That is NOT what occurred.

When Okinawa (the staging area for Olympic), was hit with Typhoon Louise in October of '45, fortunately it was by then nearly abandoned. Yet it still represented the largest loss of USN ships and US armed forces in history to a "natural event". If Japan had still been holding out, and keeping the Red Army at bay, a real "divine wind" would have again decimated their foes, hundreds more ships and men, just as it had centuries before against Kublai Khan. I wonder how much harder they would have fought after that? With that obvious "intervention by the Gods", the correctness of their place in the world, and the support of the Gods would have made a surrender impossible without complete genocide annihilation.

[Fisherking]

The casualty estimates for US forces invading Japan were 2,000,000. That is not estimated Japanese military and civilian casualties.

The utter fanaticism of Japan is also not much remembered.

Many of the atrocities of the Japanese are not mentioned today. Some so bad you likely wouldn’t even believe them.

From the standpoint of the Military at the time, it saved more lives than it took.

[Subotan]

The Japanese Government could have easily surrenedered after Hiroshima. I'm not sure if they had information about the atomic bomb, but certainly Nagasaki was pointless. It wasn't the American's fault for dropping the bomb, it was the fanatacism of the Japanese millitary. The lesson to be learned from this?

Don't fight total war and lose.

[Watchman]

From what I gather the real diehards in the Japanese govermenent wouldn't have surrendered even after Nagasaki, but by that point the Emperor and the saner minds had had enough and kicked them aside...

[Beefy187]

It had to be done some point in history. Because of what happened and what we know happened, hopefully we will hesitate using it in the future.

If there was a mistake, that was causing the war in the first place.

[Ser Clegane]

The "evergreen" topic. I remember we had an interesting (somewhat heated) discussion about this some 5-6 years ago here in the Monastery.

In the poll I voted that the bomb was necessary. This refers to the Hiroshima bomb only - I still have serious doubts that the Nagasaki bomb was necessary only a couple of days after Hiroshima.

EDIT: Apart from the question of the necessity in that specific historical context, I share beefy's somewhat more philosophic view that the eventual use of nuclear weapons was probably a bullet humanity had to bite (as bad and armchair-general-like as this sounds) to experience the shock and that it was better to happen in the beginning before the much more devastating versions were developed (and only one side had the weapen so that relatiation in kind was impossible)

[Beskar]

Beefy's opinion was something I thought of, by seeing the bomb in action, we saw how dangerous it was. (even though they are 1000x more dangerous now) It also made everyone stop the war as they didn't really want to just get glassed off the planet and it probably stumped any thoughts the USSR had in further invasion.


This is slightly off-topic: But I was reading somewhere that War with the USA boiled down to the USA emargo-ing Japan, depriving them of 90% of their Fuel income due to their war with China. Is there any truth to this?

[KukriKhan]

If I were Truman, I would have detonated a nuke on an uninhabited Pacific island, inviting allies and enemies world-wide to watch. Then given Japan a week to surrender. No surrender? Nuke a Japanese city.

But I have the benefit of hindsight. I don't have the military intel estimates of Japan staring me in the face, nor the memory of the unprovoked Pearl Harbor "sneak attack" fresh in mind, a mere 4 years earlier.

So, if I were Truman, in Truman's shoes, I guess I'd do as Truman did.

[CountArach]

Probably one of the greatest crimes against humanity thus far, however I can see the logic from the standpoint of the US Leadership at the time. Would I have supported it? No. Would I have understood? Yes, probably. Nagasaki I think was unnecessary. I'm sure that Hiroshima got the message across.

[TinCow]

EDIT: Apart from the question of the necessity in that specific historical context, I share beefy's somewhat more philosophic view that the eventual use of nuclear weapons was probably a bullet humanity had to bite (as bad and armchair-general-like as this sounds) to experience the shock and that it was better to happen in the beginning before the much more devastating versions were developed (and only one side had the weapen so that relatiation in kind was impossible)

I agree with this as well. Regardless of whether it was necessary to end the war, I do believe that the true horrors of nuclear weapons had to be seen before the world would ever become reluctant to use them. I believe that if nuclear/atomic weapons had not been used until after multiple nations had possession of them, the risk of a full-scale nuclear exchange would have been much higher. I would bet that nuclear weapons would have been used against China during the Korean War. Not only would that have resulted in greater loss of life than Hiroshima/Nagasaki due to advances in nuclear weapons, it also would have risked retaliation from the USSR.

[Jolt]

This is slightly off-topic: But I was reading somewhere that War with the USA boiled down to the USA emargo-ing Japan, depriving them of 90% of their Fuel income due to their war with China. Is there any truth to this?

Obviously it didn't boil down only to that, but the fact was that that had a significant impact on how Japan thought their positions on the global stage. The really MAJOR reason why Japan attacked the USA was the American Administration forbidding any attack on the European powers and territories (e.g. Britain and the Netherlands), doing so, the American administration said, it would be an act of war upon the USA as well. From there Japan had 5 options:

a) Try to approach the Soviets, which would be unlikely given the Anti-Commintern Pact they signed with Germany and Italy, but hey, Stalin wanted an alliance with the Axis, so there have been stranger things. An approachment with the Soviets might mean that they could import oil from the Soviets, bypassing the American embargo. But then again, the Soviet were equally committed in supporting the Chinese, as they knew that if Japan won in China, the Soviet grip in the far east would be severely weakened, so no major luck there.
b) Invade the British and Dutch East Indies without attacking the USA and hoping the entire Americans threats of war were a bluff. If they weren't, the war probably wouldn't last very long as the USA still had most of the Pacific fleet ready to reinforce and restrain the Japanese. It might have worked. Major problem was, if it didn't.
c) Invade the British and Dutch East Indies and attack and cripple the USA ability to defend the Pacific with its fleet. It would still be nigh suicidal, but this was the path Japan took.
d) Shrug off the Oil Embargo and watch as military operations and the army's operationability and Industrial Output sink progressively until they had to slowly defend and withdraw throughout most of China until Japan innevitably threw the towel.
e) Make peace with China, probably at the Status Quo Ante Bellum, or phreaps getting some few other minor concessions. This way, they would keep Indochina, Manchuria, Korea and all Pacific islands here and there. Best path possible. Unfortunately, the rampant Imperialism within the Japanese elite mindset of the time prevented the Japanese from seeing the light.

The fact was that Japan had nobody to blame for the path they took but themselves. The Sino-Japanese wars started on pure Imperialistic-Territorial Aggrandizement reasons.

[caravel]

IMHO the genocide of over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, cannot be justified.

[Husar]

IMHO the genocide of over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, cannot be justified.

I think genocide has the intent of eradicating a genus, a race/civilization/people. I'd rather call it mass-murder if you want to call it something horrible.
My opinion is that I'm not sure, the first one was about as justified as the firebombing of japanese and german cities, the second I'm not sure but in war you usually shoot until the other side gives up, it's the way war works.

To blame one side for inventing a bigger caliber is a bit...I don't know, everyone tries to get an edge over the other side, some succeed, some don't. Now of course they killed civilians but then noone asked the USA whether they wanted to fight in that war or not, when you wake up the eagle you may get more than you expected.
I'd be more against it had the USA started the war.

[caravel]

Whatever you like to call it, massacre, genocide, mass murder or a "war crime", it's still the killing of over 200,000 innocent men women and children - not military targets, not collateral damage, but civillian people deliberately targeted. They were not directly responsible for the actions of their ruling classes.

[TinCow]

Whatever you like to call it, massacre, genocide, mass murder or a "war crime", it's still the killing of over 200,000 innocent men women and children - not military targets, not collateral damage, but civillian people deliberately targeted. They were not directly responsible for the actions of their ruling classes.

That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.

One of the things that has always bothered me about Hiroshima/Nagasaki is that they are treated as special circumstances that are somehow worse than conventional bombings. The March '45 conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet there is far more outrage directed against the Nagasaki event than the Tokyo event. It doesn't make sense to me.

[al Roumi]

EDIT: Apart from the question of the necessity in that specific historical context, I share beefy's somewhat more philosophic view that the eventual use of nuclear weapons was probably a bullet humanity had to bite (as bad and armchair-general-like as this sounds) to experience the shock and that it was better to happen in the beginning before the much more devastating versions were developed (and only one side had the weapen so that relatiation in kind was impossible)

You are evidently aware of how dispassionate and removed the "philosphic" view sounds. Personally, I'm a little queesy at any hint of bland approval for the sacrifice of 200,000 people... Such reasoning is much easier to make if you are not personaly affected by the human cost - I would be very surprised to hear a relative of one of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bomb victims accept the deaths so freely.

[al Roumi]

That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.

Before assigning blame, it would be only fair to at least examine how much choice the average inhabitant of Nagasaki, Hiroshima or Tokyo (as you rightly go on to say) had in their contribution to the war effort.

An interesting modern reflection of your logic is Al-Qaida's assertion that US and allied civilians deserve 9/11 and other atrocities as they have voted in their governments and supposedly have more say in the decisions made by them!

One of the things that has always bothered me about Hiroshima/Nagasaki is that they are treated as special circumstances that are somehow worse than conventional bombings. The March '45 conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet there is far more outrage directed against the Nagasaki event than the Tokyo event. It doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with this, but I guess it's the ghastly novelty and scale of what the 2 bombs did, compared to the tons of (conventional) munitions dropped on e.g. Dresden and Tokyo.

[Ser Clegane]

You are evidently aware of how dispassionate and removed the "philosphic" view sounds.

I am absolutely aware of that. This point is also most definitely not an argument for the necessity/justification of dropping the bomb - not even in hindsight.
I think it is simply a point that is worthwhile to think about - in an indeed removed way.

If you look up the old 2004 thread about the atomic bombs on Japan you will see that at that time I argued against the camp that was justifying the bombs - especially againts the "they had it coming" view that was voiced back then.
Nevertheless I came to recognize that the alternatives to the a-bomb e.g., launching a conventional attack to end the war would have yielded more horrible results, even if the horror might have been less "obvious" (in addition the quick end most likely saved a lot of civilian lives in China).

I do not like the term "justified" in this context very much as it implies that the Japanese population "deserved" what happened and received "justice".
"Necessary" is the term I feel is more suitable as it rather emphasises the lack of viable alternatives to this tragedy.

[al Roumi]

Glad to hear we aren't just making off the cuff judgments here on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.

This is the problem.

[Vuk]

In my opinion the US of A's and Britain's bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan were terrorism and mass murder. While it doesn't make us as bad as Nazis and Imperialist Japan, it makes our leaders at that time pretty close. Not just Dresden, but Tokyo, and tons of cities in Europe were bombed with the intent of killing large amounts of the population and instilling fear and an unwillingness to fight. We barely touched the industrial zones most times, and production always shot up afterward. We destroyed their history, their culture, their lives, and their morale. We took it from waging a war on Hitler to terrorizing and massacring the French and German population, as well as many Central Europeans. Dresden, like with the A-bombings was done to demonstrate to the world (and Russia in particular I think) what could be done with a strategic bombing campaign. I don't think that it reflects badly on the American and British people (who I have no doubt would not have let it happen if they had known the motivations and methods) who had no choice in the matter, but on the (liberals coincidently) corrupt political and military leaders who planned and authorized it.
I think it serves as a good lessen as to why people in free countries around the world should be a lot more vigilant, and a lot more careful of whom they elect.

[caravel]

That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.

One of the things that has always bothered me about Hiroshima/Nagasaki is that they are treated as special circumstances that are somehow worse than conventional bombings. The March '45 conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet there is far more outrage directed against the Nagasaki event than the Tokyo event. It doesn't make sense to me.

Nice textbook response, but when applied to real life it doesn't really hold up - but maybe that's me being soft and not really liking nukes or anyone being nuked. As far as the arms manufacture/supply goes, conventional bombings would have taken out any arms factories without causing 200,000+ civilian casualties (most of which probably weren't involved in arms manufacture). This was not a targeted strike against military installations but an immoral and unjustifiable attack on the people of Japan themselves (the psychological warfare of carpet bombing taken to another level). It's what the US like to call "terrorism" nowadays and certainly would call terrorism if it was carried out against them.

There are also the long term effects of Nuclear attack to consider. This is what really makes it much worse than most other kinds of conventional bombing as it affects civilian people for many generations to come.

[Ser Clegane]

What would have been the best alternative to end the war with less civilian* casualties, in your opinion?

*actually in times of drafts we also might take military casualties into account as well.