Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Kandon Arc]

Think of it this way, it prevented a massive invasion that would have killed hundreds of thousands more. The japanese were ready to fight to the death, trying to take over Japan would be more costly then the casualties in Europe. In the end it saved lives.

The problem with the whole invasion would have cost more lives theory is it ignores the element of choice in that invasion. However horrific the invasion would have been, every US and Japanese soldier would have made a decision to fight. Who among Nagasaki and Hiroshima or their descendents had a choice in their fate?

 

[Doug]

When the time came to decide whether to use the A-Bomb, the Allies had already fire-bombed Dreseden and Tokyo, and if you haven't read about the horrific loss of life those bombing raids caused, then you can't begin to understand the decision-making process that led to dropping the A-Bomb.

World War II was not like any war any of us on these forums have participated in or seen on TV. World War II was total war, and civilians were simply not off limits to either side. Both the Allies and the Axis had made it clear that conditional armistice was not an option.

With their banzai charges and suicide-over-surrender behavior, the Japanese were telling the Allies that they were fully prepared to fight to the death against the West. The Allies called their bluff by proving they actually *were* willing to kill every last Japanese person on the islands in order to win. It was only when faced with an actual choice of surrender or genocide of the entire Japanese race that the Emperor chose surrender.

The atomic bomb was not inherently necessary for the Japanese to be convinced of their imminent annihilation. The Allies were, in fact, willing to destroy Japan, and were doing a good job of it with fire-bombing using thousands of bombers, well before the A-Bomb got dropped.

The A-Bomb was just a quicker and easier method of achieving the same goal as the fire-bombing. It let us make it look easy, suggesting we could casually wipe our enemies out of existence. (And it wasn't racial. We fire-bombed Germany too, and we developed the A-Bomb to use on them, initially). That's the context in which the decision was made: Having already decided we might have to wipe everybody out, we decided to show we could do so pretty fast, hoping they'd surrender and we wouldn't have to.

Agreed - although you missed out the mass crimes against humanity, specifically Allied PoW's, Chinese civilians, and most of the natives on the islands they oppied. These crimes, unlike Germany's, still have not been apogolised for to this date. In fact, they have tried to disprove there rapes, murders, and so forth.

So, really, "should the A-Bomb have been dropped" is the wrong question to ask. The right questions to ask are:
1) Was unconditional victory so important that the Allies should have been willing to inflict massive civilian death? i.e. was "strategic bombing" necessary
2) If so, was using a new weapon that made inflicting massive civilian death faster and better the right decision?

You have to look to your own morality to answer question #1, but if you say "yes" to it, it's hard to say that using the A-Bomb was wrong. In short, if you want to criticize the A-Bomb, criticize strategic bombing as a whole.

(For more details on the above line of thought, check out the excellent book "Japan's War", by Edwin Hoyt, which traces the course of World War II from the Japanese perspective.)

1) Yes: A conditional victory would simply have lead to the same situation after World war 1 - i.e. a population who did not accept that their military had been defeated completely. Put simply, the Japanese had to know and fully accept that they we're beaten, completely and totally, so that they could not believing they were betrayed by cowardly leaders (As happened in post-WWI Germany).

2) Yes: The shock value of this super weapon was necessary to show the Japanese that the war was utterly hopeless if they continued to fight - the USA had to show they that they had the power to completely annialate the whole population of Japanese without putting themselves into danger - that the Japanese couldn't take down the American troops as a way of winning.

In short, the war was an awful, brutual period in human history, and frankly, the atomic bomb was a necessary evil to ironically save more lives than would otherwise had to have died to end it.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Thank you for telling people to read this. However, the fact is, this is not hindsight, but a culmination of the information we had at the time. We had cracked the Japanese code by this point and we were watching the events described unfold in real time. More than that, we had been receiving, and rejecting, peace overtures from Japan from 43' on.

Oh yes, we had cracked a great many of their codes, so much so that codebreakers had to prioritize both the decryption and translation based upon the code used and the likelihood of it containing information of pressing urgency. Tactical information was good, diplomatic traffic and strategic information equally good if not quite as urgent. Here's the thing, we received all information, including those that gave us a look into the mindset of those in power, and that gave indication that they were prepared to fight to the death.

What doesn't get sent out on the airwaves is the population's support (any reports of which were tainted by the thoughts and plans of the agency reporting it - i.e. the military government responsible for the continuation of the war) and specific details regarding production which could be handled in face-to-face meetings of relevant parties. Oh, to be sure there were snippets of information about this still sent on the airwaves, but you'd have to sift through thousands of messages to find it.

Yes, this is the consolidation of information available, but it also factors in all the interviews post-war in Japan. Reread that Foreward. The report is based upon both - can you accurately tell me which is ONLY reliant on infomation available and given to Truman in July of 1945?

Here's some diplomatic information that was sent and decrypted: <a href='http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf' target=_blank>"MAGIC" - Diplomatic Summary 1214

This is the summary of all the day's intercepts and translations, with appropriately important ones included in part or full. Note the message from Sato to Togo near the end. While it indicates the willingness of surrender, it also mentions the 'despotic bureaucracy' that showed 'contempt for diplomacy'. Also note this, just a few weeks before the bombs were dropped:

We should, however, give a fair hearing to the argument that "if the enemy actually carries out a landing, we will concentrate all our strength on a counter-attack and will thus bring about his disillusionment." I understand from your July 17 message ... that the Government and the Military are convinced that we will still be able to give the enemy considerable shock with our war strength.

While some elements of the Japanese government may have been seeking peace through negotiation, the majority were still committed to continue the fighting. Even when Emporer Hirohito sent his acceptance of the unconditional surrender terms, there remained a faction of the government willing to assassinate him to continue the fight.

 

[Ulfrinn]

A lot of people have been arguing with the cold war in mind. Now frankly, even if the USA hadn't dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, I reckon the soviets would've developed Nuclear Weapons anyway, leading to the cold war.

Just purely because, even if the USA hadn't demonstrated the atomic bomb, they would've still had it, and the Soviets would've wanted it too.

As for Hiroshima, yes it was a horrible thing, but if it prevented more possible deaths it was a good thing. However, I'm still not convinced.

 

[Kaeldurn]

You're attitude isn't horrible. It's insane.

People like you keep your head in metaphysical clouds while the whole world burns.

I'm here. Common sense. The real world. Targeting civilians for death is never justified. Everyone has the right to self-defense. No one has the right to hold a bloody hand over the world.

Why did we fight Hitler, afterall, when his message could have saved so many lives? You're insane.

I think you're missing the point, in fact I know you are. I also seem to think you're under the impression the world is "Burning" right now... because if it was, you'd be dead. The majority of us would, most humans these days are soft and pampered, a mere shadow of our former strength.

I also love the fact that whenever someone makes a counter argument, you automatically compare them to a Nazi, or a Muslim terrorist, or what have you.

The difference between a soldier, and a civilian, is that a civilian isn't in a uniform. Even if the civilian isn't "Offically" in the army doesn't mean he won't fight, or aid the enemy. I don't think you should wholesale slaughter them, but if it must be done, it must be done.

I would also like to point out that the way we wage war now is focused entirely on avoiding unwarranted deaths. Weapons and bombs with incredible precision to avoid bringing unneeded pain. Yet the "World is aflame" according to you.

I will save my breath, and end with this. A human death is terrible, yes, but if it is the means to an end that would save many in the future, very well. Many have accepted this, and we focus on taking the path of least loss. Even if it may seem "Terrible" to those who lack the foresight.

 

[Doug]

Oh, and civilians are a valid target in a total war - no such thing as an innocent civilian, so long as they were supporting their soldiers

Allah akbar, my friend. Total war, most definitely.

American ironies.

I gotta say, reading this entire thread reminds me exactly how well off the world seems to be these days.

So comfortable are the majority of our lives that people seem to now believe that it is somehow possible to go through life doing absolutely no ill.

I would like for everyone to reflect on the history of humanity for a while, and realize the ocean of blood that has been spilled, and continues to be, because of our nature. Is this "Bad"? Yes, in our current way of life, the unnecessary taking of life is viewed as this, because this is how our society has evolved. However that is only due to our mindset, because we've turned all out war into something beyond mere field combat with soldiers, tanks, airplanes, and bombs. We've turned it into Armageddon.

Before you go on about your rantings about how horrible that is, I would like to point out that the first step into this new "Way of War" was taken by the bombings. So in a way, by the blood shed by the so called "Atrocities", we've saved the lives of countless beings.

That said, in terms of the bombings themselves, as I said before, it was a lot more than just "Revenge" for anything Japan did, or a forced end to the war. It was a statement by the United States, to the entire world, and more importantly, the Soviet Union. It was a simple message. "War will be the end of not just this generation, but all generations. The land will burn, people will be naught but ash, and all will be lost."

Ok, perhaps not that dramatic, but it was fairly straight forward. America is, and will always remain to be, a bloody handed country. The day we cease to be is the day we are brought low. That, Dear Escapist, is when our society so forgiving and focused on creation and glorification will give way to the old struggle to survive.

If we "Had Known" (In before: "READ IT, WE DID."), do I think we would've still done it? Yep. You can't send a message if it stays sitting on your desk.

Can't stomach the concept of death to prove a point? Be glad the world is no longer so cruel as it used to be.

----

TL;DR:

Yes. Emphatically yes.

Unrelated: Cball11 makes me happy... in the pants.

You're attitude isn't horrible. It's insane.

People like you keep your head in metaphysical clouds while the whole world burns.

I'm here. Common sense. The real world. Targeting civilians for death is never justified. Everyone has the right to self-defense. No one has the right to hold a bloody hand over the world.

Why did we fight Hitler, afterall, when his message could have saved so many lives? You're insane.

Civilians who where training to fight, to the dead [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps], the American invasion?

To be blunt, would prefer the Americans had to invade? Had to have died in the millions (And yes, I meant millions) whilst having to mow down the sucuidal charges of civilian milita's (also in the millions)?

And after that, have to try and keep West German from sliding into chaos or from being taken over by the Soviet Union?

Frankly, I hate to say it, but Kaeldurn is mostly right, although I don't share his completely bleak outlook.

And even after all that, some soldiers didn't surrender until the 1970's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout]!

 

[Volstag9]

Yes of course. If not, millions more people would have dies this was the best way in my mind we could have ended the war.

 

[Kaeldurn]

Frankly, I hate to say it, but Kaeldurn is mostly right, although I don't share his completely bleak outlook.

I play too much Warhammer and Warhammer: 40k. GRIMDARK and Setch.

That, and in my line of work you work with the scum of society. When you're not hidden away behind the curtains of our comfortable and happy society, humans are beasts. Incredible ones, but beasts none-the-less.

 

[Zani]

Yes it should, because America would have had enormous casualties if they were to invade Japan, however I don't think that WMDs should be made anymore.

 

[red the fister]

hind sight is 20/20

Been reading forum posts on here for a good whilst now and never felt the compulsion to sign up. Until now.

I whole heartily agree with Truman's decision to use the bomb. Japan wouldn't have surrended unless they were faced with such complete and powerful force. Even after both bombs were dropped some officers tried to overthrow the emperor so they could continue the fight.

Japan would have surrendered even if atom bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender.

So no, then.

after having carefully read http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm i failed to see any section matching your "Quote" from said article. what you have presented as foresight is a paraphrasing of one or two paragraphs from the section entitled "Hindsight".

and all, do please remember that the use most of the Legal and Accepted Tactics and Weapon Systems deployed in WWII are war crimes under the Geneva Convention. not that i fully agree with said treaty, i prefer to "Go Ender" in any situation where my life or that of my loved ones is concerned.

in conclusion Ragdrazi, u seem to be lacking in even the courage to be honest with the nature of your claims. enough of you.

back on topic.

as a Marine i understand the rational behind dropping the bombs. as a Man the existance of War itself disgusts and shames me. but i do beleive that the bombs were used in as just a manner as any WMD can ever be used.

P.S. i endured gas attacks utilized by Iraq as a defensive measure when we were sent in unjustly and i do not know it iraq is a genevia convention member state, but i hold them no ill will. read into that what you will

 

[confernal]

The invention and use of the nuclear weapon changed the face of war as we known it... Its no longer about how many troops you have, the morale of your people, power of your country or if your fighting the good fight.... the one defining factor is how many are pointed at you... You can't fight a war when the reason for it is burning.

 

[beddo]

This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.

No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.

This point is simply not true. Before the US dropped the bomb, they carpet bombed Japan with flyers in (in Japanese) about what they planned to do. The fact that no one headed the warning is not the fault of the United States.

[link]http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm[/link]

Like I said the use of atomic bombs against Japanese civilians was, by definition, a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Alerting people of a bombing does not mitigate the crime if people are killed. Moreover, as stated in the above link under section 7, crimes against humanity include:

"Deportation or forcible transfer of population;"

You could argue that saying, if you don't leave I will bomb your city as a form of forcible trnasfer.

Consider the situation on a smaller scale. I plant C4 all over your house and then phone you to say I'll be setting it off in 10 minutes. If I go ahead and you are still there it would be a crime of murder. The same applies on a larger scale as the attack was clearly directed at civilians of whose presence the US had a reasonable knowledge of.

If they were serious about this then the could have bombed a military installation after giving significant warning of around one month. The effect would have been the same without the huge number of civilian casualties.

Furthermore, you could argue the the radioactive fallout which effected other civilians outside of Japanalso had their basic human rights violated.

 

[CertifiedWaffle]

Yes, because the war would have gone on longer if we hadn't. It was a neccesary evil, and it was basically the only way to end the war.

 

[windowsills]

No it shouldn't have been dropped. War is for soldiers not innocent woman and children but then again the American higher ups didn't quite have the balls the rest of the world seemed to have back then and wouldn't dream of fighting the Japanese to the last man so it makes sense they'd attack the ones who couldn't defend themselves.

 

[Nedned]

No. Killing soldiers is one thing, they were expecting it and knew what they were in for. But citizens? That isn't right.

 

[Phototoxin]

Well its funny that the US is the only country in the world to have dropped an atomic bomb on anyone and how in 'nam they were using things like agent orange. Yet now they cry if people have so much as a nuclear powerplant... kinda hypocritical really.

 

[Adfest]

By the time the US dropped the bombs, we were in a very bloody war for over 4 years. The military and civilian losses on both sides of the conflict were in the 10s of millions and we were looking at a shiny new invasion of Japan that would result in another several million lives lost, both civilian an military.

I sincerely doubt that Truman was bouncing in his chair, looking forward to dropping the bomb that would claim Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. I'm actually surprised that it was dropped at all, but in retrospect it was the right choice.