Poll: were the nukes dropped on japan in WW2 really needed to win?

[Whoatemysupper]

I think that Hiroshima was a dubious but passable action. NAGASAKI KILLS ME! (no pun intended). Why would they drop another bomb onto another highly civilian populated are after the Japanese had surrendered. I heard it was because the Japanese didn't want to dethrone their emperor. At this point in history, the Emperor had become solely a religious ruler. It's like terrorists nuking New York because the Pope won't step down! I really wonder why there wasn't a War Crimes trial to hold the American leaders accountable for the deaths of more than 200,000 innocents (not to mention you can't identify people who have been vaporized). Actually retract that previous thing about Hiroshima, both were horrible things to do. When I think of the 19th century, I think first of the Holocaust, secondly of The Russians who won both World Wars, and then the War Crimes the Americans committed and their reluctance to join until the felt they were in trouble and not thinking at all for all the people who died in the Holocaust and the war up until that point. I once saw a documentary in which it showed clips of citizens in 1940 with signs (protesting isn't the word) for a Nazi-American Alliance. The only reason the U.S. is powerful is because they sit and and steal the glory at the end of just and consequential wars, and then conduct unjust wars and essentially rob the people of their own political wishes (Vietnam) and Resources (Gulf War). Sorry if you have served in the U.S Army or other branches. You guys are awesome and all, but your leaders can go to hell.

 

[Commissar Sae]

This may have been touched on, I haven't read the 100+ replies yet.
Why did Japan attack in the first place?

Mostly due to a US oil embargo they viewed as an act of war. Which in turn started as a protest against Japanese expansionism and war crimes in east Asia and the Pacific. Its actually pretty complex.

the oil embargo was less than a act of war but more of a we have no choice to go to war. they needed oil for there war machine, we denied them said oil.

Agreed, but the Japanese viewed it as an act of war, so for them the war was already on when they attacked Pearl Harbour. Its mostly legal semantics concerning what an act of war is and interpretation under international law. Its still kind of a grey area.

 

[Corewalker]

This may have been touched on, I haven't read the 100+ replies yet.
Why did Japan attack in the first place?

Mostly due to a US oil embargo they viewed as an act of war. Which in turn started as a protest against Japanese expansionism and war crimes in east Asia and the Pacific. Its actually pretty complex.

Well at least the USA can't be accused of that today...
This gawdam oil, I tell ya.
If someone could suggest a book for more info I would appreciate it.

 

[N7 Ruiz]

Well I probably would not be here today my grandfather was apart of the invasion force then occupation force so yeah I think they were needed the thing is now is to eliminate nukes so that we can have big wars again. Yep.

 

[Commissar Sae]

This may have been touched on, I haven't read the 100+ replies yet.
Why did Japan attack in the first place?

Mostly due to a US oil embargo they viewed as an act of war. Which in turn started as a protest against Japanese expansionism and war crimes in east Asia and the Pacific. Its actually pretty complex.

Well at least the USA can't be accused of that today...
This gawdam oil, I tell ya.
If someone could suggest a book for more info I would appreciate it.

I don't have much of it on hand right now, but PM me and I'll dig through my old school books if you want.

 

[Nieroshai]

I've heard that we didn't actually need to drop the bombs and that invasion was not likely going to be necessary as well. Some historians believe that Japan was already on the verge of surrender before we dropped the bombs.

Personally, I don't buy it. If they were on the verge of surrender, you would think that dropping one bomb would have been enough to force such a thing. Also, we showed the world the horror and power of nuclear weaponry. I don't think it is a stretch to say that using them on that day prevented them from being used at a later date and possibly in a much worse fashion.

I think I recall correctly that the Japanese were actually hitting harder and harder up until the bombs, and even then the first bomb only made them mad until they realized we could keep dropping until there was no Japan. So yes we could have won without nukes, but two cities in exchange for the many more who would have died is seen by many as the lesser of two evils. All premature death is tragic and I wish it had not come to that. But the Sword of Damocles that threatens is really a better alternative than an equal battle where both fight until someone runs out of troops altogether.

As I recall we lied about having more bombs. We only actually had two, but we told Japan that we could keep dropping those bombs (not sure how often we bluffed it as weekly or monthly most likely) until we wiped Japan from the globe.

I don't know how many we had, but we live-tested several in the middle of nowhere so Fat Man and Little Boy were not the only nukes ever made up til the end of the war. So we may have had ten at the very least, but I doubt we did all that life fire practice and only took the weapon into the field with two rounds in the clip as it were.

Well, I did a quick search. It seems we were both right. There weren't any more bombs ready, but they were being made and were intended for use. Actually, according to Wikipedia it seems that they were considering saving the bombs to use in conjunction with an invasion. And were trying to decide what would be the most effective use of such weapons in that event.

Oh, and the Soviet Union had officially declared war Japan, which also seems to have been a major role in the Japanese surrender. So, I'd say that the bombs weren't the only factor in Japanese surrender, but they were a major one. It was the sum of events that led to the surrender.

[sub]How scary is it to think that the United States was considering using nuclear weapons to assist in the invasion?[/sub]

Wow... did they not think radiation would be an issue?

 

[scott91575]

It wasn't needed to win, (by that point it was clear who was going to win the war in the Pacific no matter what) but it was preferable to a land invasion. Many Japanese citizens proved how fanatical they were when they committed suicide (taking their children with them) to avoid capture, and the Japanese government was literally handing out sharp sticks and ordering their citizens to go down fighting should the US invade. It's kind of hard to believe, but dropping the bombs really did end up saving lives.

Now, why we couldn't have just detonated the bombs safely off shore as a demonstration first, I don't know. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But it seems to me like it was at least worth a shot, especially considering the alternative.

The US only had two bombs, and the production of more would have taken another year or more. This of course was not known to the Japanese, but a "show" of their power could have backfired. Attacking industrialized areas was the most prudent course of action.

If there were more than two bombs I have no doubt they would have been used for show first, but since there were only two they had to be used in the most devastating manner.

No, the US would have had 7-15 more by the invasion, and we had an additional 1-2 that would have been ready within the month. I believe they were fitting up the third bomb when they got the news that Japan had surrendered.

That is completely wrong. The ability to create the materials needed to create the bombs were very poor at the time. Hence the reason they created two different types. It was no easy task to put together the weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium in sufficient quantities. Heck, it's still a rather arduous endeavor. Yet at the time it would have taken about a year for the US to make enough to create more bombs.

 

[Sean951]

I think that Hiroshima was a dubious but passable action. NAGASAKI KILLS ME! (no pun intended). Why would they drop another bomb onto another highly civilian populated are after the Japanese had surrendered. I heard it was because the Japanese didn't want to dethrone their emperor. At this point in history, the Emperor had become solely a religious ruler. It's like terrorists nuking New York because the Pope won't step down! I really wonder why there wasn't a War Crimes trial to hold the American leaders accountable for the deaths of more than 200,000 innocents (not to mention you can't identify people who have been vaporized). Actually retract that previous thing about Hiroshima, both were horrible things to do. When I think of the 19th century, I think first of the Holocaust, secondly of The Russians who won both World Wars, and then the War Crimes the Americans committed and their reluctance to join until the felt they were in trouble and not thinking at all for all the people who died in the Holocaust and the war up until that point. I once saw a documentary in which it showed clips of citizens in 1940 with signs (protesting isn't the word) for a Nazi-American Alliance. The only reason the U.S. is powerful is because they sit and and steal the glory at the end of just and consequential wars, and then conduct unjust wars and essentially rob the people of their own political wishes (Vietnam) and Resources (Gulf War). Sorry if you have served in the U.S Army or other branches. You guys are awesome and all, but your leaders can go to hell.

Ignoring that Russia was the first country to quit WWI, and would have likely lost WWII without American supplies, America's job is to look out for America's people. Sure there were people saying we should join with the Nazi's, but there were just as many saying we should join the Allies, and until Pearl Harbor, far more who said it was a European problem and we should deal with our own issues first. Dropping the bombs saved American lives, which was definitely one of the goals. You also mistake the Nagasaki bombing as having happened after the surrender, instead of as an attempt to get them to surrender. Even after the bombing, the leaders were locked 3-3 on the issue, and were going so far as to threaten a coup.

 

[Whateveralot]

And every bomb has a silver lining, as such a show of force established atomic weaponry as a way to keep any sane leader from starting a major conflict.

This will sooner or later cause the shit to be flung into the fan big time. Or it doesn't and we're lucky.

OT: I don't really have an opinion on this matter. I can't tell what would've happened otherwise, but reading other people's opinion, if the US started an all-out war against Japan, it would've gotten REALLY bloody. Not sure if the US would "win" though, these nukes were their last straw.

 

[Sean951]

It wasn't needed to win, (by that point it was clear who was going to win the war in the Pacific no matter what) but it was preferable to a land invasion. Many Japanese citizens proved how fanatical they were when they committed suicide (taking their children with them) to avoid capture, and the Japanese government was literally handing out sharp sticks and ordering their citizens to go down fighting should the US invade. It's kind of hard to believe, but dropping the bombs really did end up saving lives.

Now, why we couldn't have just detonated the bombs safely off shore as a demonstration first, I don't know. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But it seems to me like it was at least worth a shot, especially considering the alternative.

The US only had two bombs, and the production of more would have taken another year or more. This of course was not known to the Japanese, but a "show" of their power could have backfired. Attacking industrialized areas was the most prudent course of action.

If there were more than two bombs I have no doubt they would have been used for show first, but since there were only two they had to be used in the most devastating manner.

No, the US would have had 7-15 more by the invasion, and we had an additional 1-2 that would have been ready within the month. I believe they were fitting up the third bomb when they got the news that Japan had surrendered.

That is completely wrong. The ability to create the materials needed to create the bombs were very poor at the time. Hence the reason they created two different types. It was no easy task to put together the weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium in sufficient quantities. Heck, it's still a rather arduous endeavor. Yet at the time it would have taken about a year for the US to make enough to create more bombs.

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[85] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[85] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[85]
Tibbets, in an interview with historian Studs Terkel, stated that because there was silence from Japan following both the first and second atomic bombing, he was ordered by General Curtis LeMay back to Utah from Tinian to pick up another atomic bomb. But when his crew got to California, the debarkation point, the war was over.[86]

From Wikipedia. Don't forget, the US was in full production mode at this point, and had already tested several before Japan.

 

[Appleshampoo]

Considering we won the war, I'd say yes. Everything we did to win then was necessary.

 

[scott91575]

I think that Hiroshima was a dubious but passable action. NAGASAKI KILLS ME! (no pun intended). Why would they drop another bomb onto another highly civilian populated are after the Japanese had surrendered. I heard it was because the Japanese didn't want to dethrone their emperor. At this point in history, the Emperor had become solely a religious ruler. It's like terrorists nuking New York because the Pope won't step down! I really wonder why there wasn't a War Crimes trial to hold the American leaders accountable for the deaths of more than 200,000 innocents (not to mention you can't identify people who have been vaporized). Actually retract that previous thing about Hiroshima, both were horrible things to do. When I think of the 19th century, I think first of the Holocaust, secondly of The Russians who won both World Wars, and then the War Crimes the Americans committed and their reluctance to join until the felt they were in trouble and not thinking at all for all the people who died in the Holocaust and the war up until that point. I once saw a documentary in which it showed clips of citizens in 1940 with signs (protesting isn't the word) for a Nazi-American Alliance. The only reason the U.S. is powerful is because they sit and and steal the glory at the end of just and consequential wars, and then conduct unjust wars and essentially rob the people of their own political wishes (Vietnam) and Resources (Gulf War). Sorry if you have served in the U.S Army or other branches. You guys are awesome and all, but your leaders can go to hell.

The Japanese had not surrendered prior to Nagasaki. In fact, the military was planning for martial law. Perhaps the Japanese planned to surrender, but the Nagasaki bombing was moved up 2 days due to weather. Yet at the time of the bombing they had not surrendered.

 

[scott91575]

It wasn't needed to win, (by that point it was clear who was going to win the war in the Pacific no matter what) but it was preferable to a land invasion. Many Japanese citizens proved how fanatical they were when they committed suicide (taking their children with them) to avoid capture, and the Japanese government was literally handing out sharp sticks and ordering their citizens to go down fighting should the US invade. It's kind of hard to believe, but dropping the bombs really did end up saving lives.

Now, why we couldn't have just detonated the bombs safely off shore as a demonstration first, I don't know. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. But it seems to me like it was at least worth a shot, especially considering the alternative.

The US only had two bombs, and the production of more would have taken another year or more. This of course was not known to the Japanese, but a "show" of their power could have backfired. Attacking industrialized areas was the most prudent course of action.

If there were more than two bombs I have no doubt they would have been used for show first, but since there were only two they had to be used in the most devastating manner.

No, the US would have had 7-15 more by the invasion, and we had an additional 1-2 that would have been ready within the month. I believe they were fitting up the third bomb when they got the news that Japan had surrendered.

That is completely wrong. The ability to create the materials needed to create the bombs were very poor at the time. Hence the reason they created two different types. It was no easy task to put together the weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium in sufficient quantities. Heck, it's still a rather arduous endeavor. Yet at the time it would have taken about a year for the US to make enough to create more bombs.

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[85] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[85] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[85]
Tibbets, in an interview with historian Studs Terkel, stated that because there was silence from Japan following both the first and second atomic bombing, he was ordered by General Curtis LeMay back to Utah from Tinian to pick up another atomic bomb. But when his crew got to California, the debarkation point, the war was over.[86]

From Wikipedia. Don't forget, the US was in full production mode at this point, and had already tested several before Japan.

There was a supposed third one that could have been ready in late August. Yet even then it was not entirely known and the production of Plutonium was still not a known quantity. There is debate over the true readiness of more bombs.

What was planned and what was actually real is a debated topic. Stating they wanted more bombs and were willing to produce more is much different than the ability to actually have them. In reality, having more bombs was a very unknown quantity and the ability to create them was often optimistic from the military viewpoint.

 

[Astoria]

They weren't needed to win but they probably avoided a lot of close fighting and ended the war quicker.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Nuclear bombings: around 200 thousand dead.

Operation Downfall [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall], projection: tens of millions dead.

Given the situation, the nukes were clearly the right thing to do.

 

[Sean951]

There was a supposed third one that could have been ready in late August. Yet even then it was not entirely know and the production of Plutonium was still not a known quantity. There is debate over the true readiness of more bombs.

That is true, but Operation Downfall was planned to start with the detonation of 7-15 bombs at least 2 days before the invasion. You know, so that "fall out" stuff was kept to a minimum.

 

[scott91575]

There was a supposed third one that could have been ready in late August. Yet even then it was not entirely know and the production of Plutonium was still not a known quantity. There is debate over the true readiness of more bombs.

That is true, but Operation Downfall was planned to start with the detonation of 7-15 bombs at least 2 days before the invasion. You know, so that "fall out" stuff was kept to a minimum.

I don't disagree there was a plan to have more. Yet the scientific view of the readiness for more is often less optimistic than the militaristic view. I don't doubt there was a third one in production (I think it was Utah). Yet I would bet that would not have been ready in the time they planned, and much of the rest would have taken much longer. Certainly the innovation with Plutonium helped (easier to make than the Uranium bomb), but many of these stories are considered very optimistic at the time.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

As many people have pointed out, we can't really know what would have happened if we didn't/

But compared to a full scale invasion? I think it's better.

Why?

Spoiler

In case you didn't know, this is them burying POWs alive. They've proven willing to fight to the death, almost to a suicidally stupid degree.

Also, this is a good reason [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes]

Using POWs as slave labor and women as comunial sex slaves? You lose any right to complain about war crimes. Yes, it sucks that civilians were hit, but other than that, they weren't going to give up.

EDIT: Let me just say that I cannot know for sure what would have happened otherwise. But arguing how history would be different if we did X rather than Y is futile.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

From what I've heard, Japan had already surrendered, the US just wanted to show who's got more power.