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

[dinnerordie17]

asdga

 

[Gearran]

Y'know...I was going to answer this, but...well, there's no point. I've been beaten to it so thoroughly that I should by rights be a bludgeoned corpse.

 

[scott91575]

I always hate this argument, it always assumes two binary options, drop the bomb or invade Japan, when there's all sorts of options potentially better and indeed worse that could have been performed. But also hindsight is of course 20/20, whether it was the right choice now is irrelevant to whether it was the right choice then.

The circumstances at the time led the Allies to believe the only choice to end the war was an invasion of Japan. The Japanese, as far as the Allies knew, made no real overtures for a peaceful solution. At the time the bombs were dropped, the only option the Allies knew was to invade Japan. Anything else was not known to them.

You have to realize the world had just gone through almost a decade of the bloodiest battles in the history of humanity. A quick end to the war was sought by all on the Allied side, but didn't seem to be true on the Japanese side.

 

[Raptorace18]

In my mind, without a doubt.

What we have to remember is the will of the Japanese soldiers to give their lives for the defense of the home island and the emperor. I could go into great detail on this point but this quote from Gen. McArther (I think) sums it up; "Many people talk about fighting to the death, but only the Japanese will do it."

Not to mention, X-day (code name for the invasion of Japan) would have come at the cost of millions of lives. We all know about how US casualties were estimated at 1 million, but what also be remembered is that the Japanese government at this point considered all civilians military personnel; ordinary people were trained to make suicide rushes against invading troops with sharpened bamboo staffs, and throw themselves under enemy tanks strapped with explosives.

Even though the atomic bomb attacks came at huge human cost, it pails in comparison to the cost that would have been incurred by the invasion of Japan.

 

[WolfThomas]

I always hate this argument, it always assumes two binary options, drop the bomb or invade Japan, when there's all sorts of options potentially better and indeed worse that could have been performed. But also hindsight is of course 20/20, whether it was the right choice now is irrelevant to whether it was the right choice then.

The circumstances at the time led the Allies to believe the only choice to end the war was an invasion of Japan. The Japanese, as far as the Allies knew, made no real overtures for a peaceful solution. At the time the bombs were dropped, the only option the Allies knew was to invade Japan. Anything else was not known to them.

There was still plenty of options, they could have maintained a naval blockade, continued conventonal bombing or hell dropped just one atomic bomb, waited for surrender then dropped another. Notice I'm not assigning good or bad assessments to each of these. They made the decision they thought was necessary at the time and I won't judge them. But sitting in the future with the benefit of being able to look at things from all angles we should not just blindly accept their decision, we should analyse and criticize so that hopefully one day we may be able to avoid repeating the same action.

 

[scott91575]

I always hate this argument, it always assumes two binary options, drop the bomb or invade Japan, when there's all sorts of options potentially better and indeed worse that could have been performed. But also hindsight is of course 20/20, whether it was the right choice now is irrelevant to whether it was the right choice then.

The circumstances at the time led the Allies to believe the only choice to end the war was an invasion of Japan. The Japanese, as far as the Allies knew, made no real overtures for a peaceful solution. At the time the bombs were dropped, the only option the Allies knew was to invade Japan. Anything else was not known to them.

There was still plenty of options, they could have maintained a naval blockade, continued conventonal bombing or hell dropped just one atomic bomb, waited for surrender then dropped another. Notice I'm not assigning good or bad assessments to each of these. They made the decision they thought was necessary at the time and I won't judge them. But sitting in the future with the benefit of being able to look at things from all angles we should not just blindly accept their decision, we should analyse and criticize so that hopefully one day we may be able to avoid repeating the same action.

Well, like I said before people have to realize the national perception at the time. People where sick and tired of war. Millions were killed, and the pressure to simply end it was deafening. I don't think many people here realize the sheer horror of that war. You can pretty much bet everyone in every industrialized nation knew a person killed in that war. Over 60 million people died. Just let that sink in. 1 out of every 33 people in the world was killed. If you were in one of the countries involved in the conflict, that number rose big time. Just imagine that, and think every single person probably had a friend or family member die if not multiple people die. Now rethink your strategy. Tough not to want to end it now.

 

[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]

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

Who knows. I've always assumed that the government wasn't aware of the radiation or at least the effects of the radiation at the time that they dropped either of the bombs. They may have been testing the bombs, but I doubt they had even thought of anything past the bomb's explosion.

I seriously doubt they would be using the bombs anywhere near U.S. personnel. Most likely, they would have dropped them on military bases or industrial centers in an attempt to cripple the Japanese ability to fight.

 

[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.

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.

Okay your right, it was before the surrender. However, during the negotiations, the U.S. didn't mention that they'd nuke them if they didn't comply. They just went ahead and did it without warning. It's possible that they didn't want troops to evacuate but, all the innocent civilians died. Some suffered from cancer and burns and died later, suffering over a long period of time.

 

[Chefodeath]

They weren't needed to win. They certainly helped though. And America and Russia both wanted Japan. Things might have gotten a lot worse if America hadn't made such a show of force.

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.

And every bomb also has enough nuclear force to level a major city. The creation of the atomic bomb and the way the Americans showed it off basically hammered one message into the Russian psyche. "Must have." which subsequently led to the cold war and many VERY NEAR flirts with nuclear holocaust. We lucked out on that one, but if you ask me to choose one, a major war where a large number of people will die, or a coin toss where either no or ALL people will die, I'll take the war.

And you probably would have had that war. Tensions between the US and the USSR where only kept in check by the arsenal of nuclear weapons each possessed.

It's likely without them we would still be talking about the use of nuclear weapons, just this time it would be about their use in WWIII, if of course we both somehow managed to be alive, and living close to each other as it's likely globalization (and the advances in technology that have come from economic trade) would have been put off for decades if not generations. Remember china developed nukes as well shortly after the USSR did. It was just time for them, they have changed the face of modern warfare and are quite likely responsible for the fact that no major world powers went to war with each other again in the decades leading up to the era of globalization we are in now.

That's a good point, and like I said, we lucked out. It was a roll of the dice which we just happened to win out on, and we won big. I still say its a dice throw only a madman would take though.

 

[Treaos Serrare]

It was Wholly necessary and we should have dropped them much sooner than we did, far too many soldiers and civilians alike DIED because the prevailing mindset(in japan) was and still kind of is to fight until there is no one left capable of fighting. Christ they had CHILDREN running around chucking grenades into camps because who would suspect a child? far far too many of the officers in charge and their own Emperor felt they should fight till the last man, and even further to kill themselves rather than be captured, some soldiers were forced to do so in fact, if i remember the literature correctly

 

[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.

Okay your right, it was before the surrender. However, during the negotiations, the U.S. didn't mention that they'd nuke them if they didn't comply. They just went ahead and did it without warning. It's possible that they didn't want troops to evacuate but, all the innocent civilians died. Some suffered from cancer and burns and died later, suffering over a long period of time.

We sent them an ultimatum, surrender or face the total destruction of Japan. They refused, so we dropped the first bomb and told them surrender, or we will do it again. They refused, we did it again. The US had little knowledge about fall out (no one did), so blaming the post bombing deaths as intentional is pointless. Hell, we thought 48 hours would be enough time to wait before sending our own troops in.

There was still plenty of options, they could have maintained a naval blockade, continued conventonal bombing or hell dropped just one atomic bomb, waited for surrender then dropped another. Notice I'm not assigning good or bad assessments to each of these. They made the decision they thought was necessary at the time and I won't judge them. But sitting in the future with the benefit of being able to look at things from all angles we should not just blindly accept their decision, we should analyse and criticize so that hopefully one day we may be able to avoid repeating the same action.

We did wait for the surrender after the first, it didn't come. The naval blockade had been going on for some time, and they were still putting up one hell of a fight. The conventional bombing wold have also increased casualties in the immediate. Like I said earlier, the idea of fallout was pretty new, though the bombs were set to blast at a height believed to minimize fallout since we would be sending US troops in to clean up. All that was really known was that it was bad and 48 hours should totally be enough.

 

[scott91575]

I just watched "The World at War," a documentary about WW2 (rather old). After watching the horror of the battles in the Japanese islands, it's hard to even think the atomic bomb was not justified. Once you see what the soldiers went through on those islands, there is no doubt you would choose to drop the bomb to prevent one more soldier to have to go through that.

 

[The Last Parade]

everyone here is a fucking idiot, if you read a text book made outside the US you can see that Japan was on it's hands and knees begging for mercy before the bombs were dropped

Please explain that to the 12,000+ Americans and British that died at the battle of Okinawa that lasted until the end of June. It was one of the bloodiest battles of the war. They didn't appear to be on their hands and knees begging for mercy.

There was no surrender in sight, and that was only a month before the decision to drop the atomic bombs.

except of course that japan lost over 100,000 in that battle and it was, along with the constant firebombings that had been happening for months, the knee breaker for thier nation.

heres a question though, why were two bombs dropped, one three days after the other, japan immediately and unconditionally surrendered after the first.

 

[scott91575]

everyone here is a fucking idiot, if you read a text book made outside the US you can see that Japan was on it's hands and knees begging for mercy before the bombs were dropped

Please explain that to the 12,000+ Americans and British that died at the battle of Okinawa that lasted until the end of June. It was one of the bloodiest battles of the war. They didn't appear to be on their hands and knees begging for mercy.

There was no surrender in sight, and that was only a month before the decision to drop the atomic bombs.

except of course that japan lost over 100,000 in that battle and it was, along with the constant firebombings that had been happening for months, the knee breaker for thier nation.

heres a question though, why were two bombs dropped, one three days after the other, japan immediately and unconditionally surrendered after the first.

Wow, took you 10 days to reply.

First of all, Japan did not surrender after the first bomb. That seems to be a wonderful lie here. Second, the second bomb was dropped three days later due to weather reports. It was not scheduled for three days later, but pushed it up. In fact the Japanese were in a meeting when news arrived of Nagasaki, and still did not agree to surrender under the Allied terms. It was not until August 10th that the Japanese sent their terms to the Allies, and even then it was not unconditional. I think you have your facts severely wrong. It was not until August 15th (after an attempted military coup) did Japan unconditionally surrender, 6 days after the second bomb was dropped. I really have to question your supposed book knowledge with your belief they unconditionally surrendered prior to the Nagasaki bombing.

As for your assertion Japan was on their hands and knees, that was certainly not known to the Allies. Come on, the same things happened at Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Wake, etc. At Iwo Jima advisers thought it would be a cake walk. They were very, very wrong. In fact things got worse as it got closer to the island of Japan. There was no sign Japan was on their hands and knees. Victory may have been certain, but it was certain before Okinawa and look what happened there. There were zero signs to anyone that Japan was about to quit.