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

[Worgen]

no but the nukes probably saved japan

if we didnt nuke them then probably we would end up invading and there would be huge loss of life and then russia would invade also, then one of 2 things would happen
the japanese wouldnt surrender and would be almost wiped out or they would surrender and half of japan would be russian territory like germany was

I thought by that point in the war the soviet union had already agreed to help america defeat japan.

not so much agreed to help as decided to help, by that point in the war everyone knew it was over, all that was left was the cost and who would get what, so if we didnt defeat japan then the soviets would get some of it also, I think china still holds one of the northern islands of japan and that annoys japan to no end

 

[ZiggyE]

No. NO NO NO. The bombs were not necessary. No matter what anyone tells you, they weren't. The bombs weren't even dropped on Japan to end the war. They were dropped on Japan to threaten the Soviets.

Japan was on it's final legs. USA had already invaded and was in control of some Japanese territory. The only reason they didn't surrender when Germany did was out of vain pride. They didn't want to lose face. But they were close to surrendering.

At the time Japan was suffering from poverty. They were almost entirely reliant on food being imported from their China colonies. A naval blockade between Japan and mainland Asia would have stopped food going in and Japan would have been forced to surrender with relatively little bloodshed.

Nothing justifies the use of the atomic bombs on Japan, except perhaps the fact it prevented the Cold War from escalating into a full blown conflict. It was done to intimidate any future enemies America might have had. This is proven by the dropping of the second bomb three days after the first one. How can this act be justified? The first bomb, maybe, if we ignore what I've already said, but the second one? Not at all. Three days is not long enough of a time to expect a country to surrender in any war, ever, after an individual attack. Dropping the second bomb was simply an action to tell other countries, "Yes, that massive damage we did on Japan. We can do that again, we have more than one bomb." Or why didn't they drop the bomb into the ocean? To show Japan they meant business? Nothing justifies America's actions.

EDIT: I personally believe Japan's surrender (conditional, of course) was only months away. Japan knew they couldn't win. They had known for about a year they couldn't win. The only reason they hadn't surrendered, was out of pride.

You do realize the firebombing campaign actually produced more immediate casualties than the nukes, right? Not to mention the estimated casualties from the invasion. I've seen some reports that they were literally beginning to arm the general populace with primitive weapons with the goal of killing as many Americans as possible.

Your point? I wasn't endorsing an invasion, I was saying the allies had already STARTED to invade. Most of your post seems dedicated to explaining why an invasion would be bad. I never said one would be good. Hell, an invasion is LESS preferable than dropping the bombs, I agree. But the only options weren't invade or drop the bombs.

Also, why would the US accept a conditional surrender from Japan

I dunno, maybe, to end a war with no bloodshed? Does that seem like an unfavourable solution to you?

 

[Volkov]

lol,

No, of course not, not remotely. Look up Kwantung army, for example, and look up what fraction of Japanese military it constituted.

That said, the religious assessment that "It absolutely was, it was a tough decision, but anyone who disagrees, is simultaneously misinformed, AND a pussy" has been a centerpiece of US's internal propaganda for many years. So you are unlikely to find a credible US historian that says otherwise, BUT - look up foreign views on the subject. Such as... those of Japanese historians. It's often a very good place to start on WW2 history - look up another country's historians' views on the topic. That's what it took for me to recognize that USSR, despite being by far the most significant contributor to the war effort, was far from the sole winner of WW2 (which was a view that was thrown at me for many years back in middle school).

That's if you are actually interested in the history and complexity of the subject. If you are just looking for LOGIC related to the subject (i.e., talking) - well, only keep in mind that logic that pushes off of incomplete information is as useless as a die roll.

 

[Sean951]

The Allies recieved 5 different scenarios in which the Japanese were willing to surrender and accept identical terms to those accepted by America... 7 MONTHS before they surrendered. The nukes were completely unnecessary as with those 7 months of bloodshed.

They were dismissed as they ran counter to Allied policy at the time, which called for unconditional surrender.

Yes the deaths of hundreds of thousands was such a better alternative to losing a few votes. And thats why I hate politicians.

Nothing to do with domestic politics. "Allies" refers to more than just America, and the Allies had that position.

No. NO NO NO. The bombs were not necessary. No matter what anyone tells you, they weren't. The bombs weren't even dropped on Japan to end the war. They were dropped on Japan to threaten the Soviets.

Japan was on it's final legs. USA had already invaded and was in control of some Japanese territory. The only reason they didn't surrender when Germany did was out of vain pride. They didn't want to lose face. But they were close to surrendering.

At the time Japan was suffering from poverty. They were almost entirely reliant on food being imported from their China colonies. A naval blockade between Japan and mainland Asia would have stopped food going in and Japan would have been forced to surrender with relatively little bloodshed.

Nothing justifies the use of the atomic bombs on Japan, except perhaps the fact it prevented the Cold War from escalating into a full blown conflict. It was done to intimidate any future enemies America might have had. This is proven by the dropping of the second bomb three days after the first one. How can this act be justified? The first bomb, maybe, if we ignore what I've already said, but the second one? Not at all. Three days is not long enough of a time to expect a country to surrender in any war, ever, after an individual attack. Dropping the second bomb was simply an action to tell other countries, "Yes, that massive damage we did on Japan. We can do that again, we have more than one bomb." Or why didn't they drop the bomb into the ocean? To show Japan they meant business? Nothing justifies America's actions.

EDIT: I personally believe Japan's surrender (conditional, of course) was only months away. Japan knew they couldn't win. They had known for about a year they couldn't win. The only reason they hadn't surrendered, was out of pride.

You do realize the firebombing campaign actually produced more immediate casualties than the nukes, right? Not to mention the estimated casualties from the invasion. I've seen some reports that they were literally beginning to arm the general populace with primitive weapons with the goal of killing as many Americans as possible.

Your point? I wasn't endorsing an invasion, I was saying the allies had already STARTED to invade. Most of your post seems dedicated to explaining why an invasion would be bad. I never said one would be good. Hell, an invasion is LESS preferable than dropping the bombs, I agree. But the only options weren't invade or drop the bombs.

Also, why would the US accept a conditional surrender from Japan

I dunno, maybe, to end a war with no bloodshed? Does that seem like an unfavourable solution to you?

You seem to question the need for the bombs, so that was what I went after. yes, I suppose we could have tried harder to starve them out, but that had been going on for 1-2 years with no real effect.

Yes, accepting a surrender in which Japan dealt with it's own war criminals and was not occupied would have been a bad thing in my opinion. Even with the country on it's last legs, the cabinet was split 50-50 on surrendering, and there was an attempt to ignore the surrender anyways.

That said, the religious assessment that "It absolutely was, it was a tough decision, but anyone who disagrees, is simultaneously misinformed, AND a pussy" has been a centerpiece of US's internal propaganda for many years. So you are unlikely to find a credible US historian that says otherwise, BUT - look up foreign views on the subject. Such as... those of Japanese historians. It's often a very good place to start on WW2 history - look up another country's historians' views on the topic. That's what it took for me to recognize that USSR, despite being by far the most significant contributor to the war effort, was far from the sole winner of WW2 (which was a view that was thrown at me for many years back in middle school).

The Japanese also have the position that they were tricked into attacking Pearl Harbor by Roosevelt and they were really quite blameless in the whole affair.

Russia was the biggest contributor in terms of raw manpower, but the US supplied an incredible amount of clothes, food, weapons, and machinery to Russia as they could not make enough of what they needed domestically.

 

[Jodah]

Needed? Nope. The best option in a shitty situation? Absolutely.

 

[Dalisclock]

At the time it was considered the best option to end the war as quickly as possible, because the only other option was a massive and extremely costly invasion of the home islands(on both sides).

 

[The Heik]

well today's victory over japan day (rhode island is the only state that "celebrates" it still) and a question popped up in my head after talking with my aunt about it...did the US really need to nuke japan?
EDIT hmm poll exploded

Strategically? No. America was stomping the Japanese armed forces on every front, at at the time Japan's leadership was seriously considering surrendering. However, politically there was cause for it. There is nothing like a live firing of a weapon like that to show the amount of devastation it can do. And what those nukes did was show the world what would happen if another world war occurred.

And it terrified us.

No nation today would be willing to start WW3 if it meant that everything they held dear would be wiped off the map, and remain inhospitable for decades to come. The best example of this would be the the Cold War. It could have become "hot" at any time during the 40-ish years it went on, but the threat of nuclear annihilation has made both sides immediately sue for peace, even if temporarily, the minute that outcome became a serious possibility.

It's ironic isn't it? The world's most lethal weapon of war has done more to keep the peace than almost any other method in human history.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

The argument that it would have "cost more lives" is complete and utter bullshit. You know how many civilians died? 246,000. I don't give a flying shit if Japan ignored the Potsdam Declaration. Absolutely NOTHING could justify what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Saltyk]

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]

 

[Commissar Sae]

The Allies recieved 5 different scenarios in which the Japanese were willing to surrender and accept identical terms to those accepted by America... 7 MONTHS before they surrendered. The nukes were completely unnecessary as with those 7 months of bloodshed.

They were dismissed as they ran counter to Allied policy at the time, which called for unconditional surrender.

Yes the deaths of hundreds of thousands was such a better alternative to losing a few votes. And thats why I hate politicians.

Nothing to do with domestic politics. "Allies" refers to more than just America, and the Allies had that position.

Of Course, Hence hatred for all politicians. Hell my Prime Minister at the time congradulated Truman for testing the bomb on Yellow people rather than whites... But the American political leadership in particualr was rather weak with Truman and if they accepted a conditional surrender it would have destroyed his political clout and a have destroyed any chance at re-election, none of the other allies had much in the way of forces in the Pacific war (other than the Aussies and Kiwis) so it was mainly an American initiative.

 

[Korolev]

To Win? Probably not - but without the nuclear weapons, a land invasion would have had to occur. They had planned a ground invasion (Operation Downfall) and the casualty projections were immense - they thought they'd be up to a million US casualties and who knows how many Japanese casualties.

So they dropped the bomb.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

No, it wasn't needed to win, but it did save countless lives both civilian and military. The Japanese were teaching their children that the Americans would rape their women and enslave their children. They were teaching the schoolkids how to kill an American GI in defense of the home island. More than half of their kamikaze fleet was saved for the defense of the home island. Each and every man, women, and child was ready to defend their houses to the death. America would have eventually won the invasion and Japan would have lost, but the nukes managed to save the lives of almost every Japanese person at the cost of those in Nagasake and Okinawa.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

To answer the original question, no. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not needed for America to win the war, but the only other way to force the Japanese Empire to surrender would have been a land invasion of Japan.

If it had come to that, countless more Japanese lives would have been lost than were lost to the a-bombs. Also, the overall American death toll in WW2 would have at least doubled. Also, it's probable that China and Stalinist Russia would have joined the U.S. in a unified invasion of Japan, which would have likely led to triple-surrender to the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., and China, greatly changing the face of the U.S.S.R.'s political power after WW2.

All in all, was dropping the bombs the "right" thing to do? I can't say. But when you look at the alternative, it may have been the "better" thing to do, but only in a "lesser of two evils" sort of way.

 

[Sean951]

The argument that it would have "cost more lives" is complete and utter bullshit. You know how many civilians died? 246,000. I don't give a flying shit if Japan ignored the Potsdam Declaration. Absolutely NOTHING could justify what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even the most conservative estimates put the cost of invasion at much higher for the Japanese. American casualties alone were expected to reach 1,000,000 over the course of the invasion. Not to mention the firebombing campaign had a higher immediate death toll in Tokyo, causing over 100,000 casualties and leaving 500,000 homeless, once again using the more conservative estimates.

 

[JustJuust]

Furthermore Japan was already trying to surrender! They had sent a request through Switzerland that Japan would surrender, but only with the condition that the Emperor remain blameless for the war and be left in peace. (Something which happened anyway.)

They were trying to surrender, but that wasn't the only condition. The other conditions were

a) Japan gets to keep all of its military forces intact

b) Japan would stay in control of its government

c) Territories Japan took over would stay as Japanese territories (korea, bit of china, and the rest)

Kind of ridiculous terms I thinketh

 

[Sean951]

The Allies recieved 5 different scenarios in which the Japanese were willing to surrender and accept identical terms to those accepted by America... 7 MONTHS before they surrendered. The nukes were completely unnecessary as with those 7 months of bloodshed.

They were dismissed as they ran counter to Allied policy at the time, which called for unconditional surrender.

Yes the deaths of hundreds of thousands was such a better alternative to losing a few votes. And thats why I hate politicians.

Nothing to do with domestic politics. "Allies" refers to more than just America, and the Allies had that position.

Of Course, Hence hatred for all politicians. Hell my Prime Minister at the time congradulated Truman for testing the bomb on Yellow people rather than whites... But the American political leadership in particualr was rather weak with Truman and if they accepted a conditional surrender it would have destroyed his political clout and a have destroyed any chance at re-election, none of the other allies had much in the way of forces in the Pacific war (other than the Aussies and Kiwis) so it was mainly an American initiative.

It was actually Roosevelt who first dismissed the attempts to surrender around the time of the Yalta Conference, not Truman.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

No one can conceivably know the answer to that, but they certainly didn't hurt America's odds. Even with the nukes, the emperor had to smuggle his declaration of surrender out of his palace in a laundry cart, because the generals were still bent on fighting until everyone was dead. If you want to talk about unnecessary waste of life, The Japanese top brass cost a lot more lives by deceiving their own people into continuing a war they knew they'd already lost for years rather than consider surrender (the terms they offered through Switzerland were absurd, given their position, and they knew it). They can also be said to have had a much greater obligation to consider the lives of Japanese civilians and soldiers than the U.S.Army did (the bomb definitely saved American lives, so it certainly wasn't a wholly indefensible decision on the part of the people who dropped it).

Ultimately, debating this kind of unanswerable question, or even taking a strong stance on it, can't lead to anything meaningful. The situation was too complex and involved too many un-knowable variables to really make sense out of. It's also worth remembering that no one in the military really had any idea of just how destructive the bombs would be and know one (not even the scientists) predicted the catastrophic effects of the radiation it left behind.

 

[martin's a madman]

They were already winning, the Atomic bombs sped up the process considerably. One of the alternative scenarios was a joint invasion with the Soviet Union. I think being Nuked is a fate better than having half the country under Soviet control.

There were other options of course, and I doubt they they completely necessary for victory, but they made a relatively cleaner victory possible.

 

[JustJuust]

The argument that it would have "cost more lives" is complete and utter bullshit. You know how many civilians died? 246,000. I don't give a flying shit if Japan ignored the Potsdam Declaration. Absolutely NOTHING could justify what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even the most conservative estimates put the cost of invasion at much higher for the Japanese. American casualties alone were expected to reach 1,000,000 over the course of the invasion. Not to mention the firebombing campaign had a higher immediate death toll in Tokyo, causing over 100,000 casualties and leaving 500,000 homeless, once again using the more conservative estimates.

I remember reading that they made A LOT of purple heart medals to give out in expectation of mainland invasion. So much in fact, that they still have purple hearts left after almost 60 years

 

[Gudrests]

We would have lost if it wasn't for the bomb.

How about no... America had the edge in production, troop numbers, and quality of what we went to battle with. Japan had been beaten for a while, but as a culture, they cannot accept defeat, and were preparing to fight to the last man, and were teaching civilians to charge with spears and crude explosive devices. To combat this, America was contemplating making MacArthur a 6-Star General, to lead over several other 5-Star generals in an all out invasion from several locations. It would have been long, it would have been bloody, and the world would be radically different.

^ is correct.

Bomb was not needed, We could of just marched in and killed every single man woman and child....not because we wanted to but because they were arming every man woman and child.