Was the atom bomb justified?

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:19 am

The big question: Was Truman justified in ordering the bombs be dropped, yes or no? And keep in mind this isn't a liberal vs. conservative debate, since I say it was completely justified, and I'm the most liberal person on these damn boards.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:53 am

It ended the war.

Of course lots of Japanese died, and those were times where wars were fought the way they were, as this question asked today would give a different answer. On one hand many people suffered and died, but it IS a war, and they were the enemy. A country ideally takes into account its citizens it may be jeopardizing before it traverses down a dangerous path, such as war. The damage done was enough to stop the Japanese war machine, sending a clear message that they would not survive the war.

The Germans were developing the bomb, and 'arguably' things could have swung the other way. There's something to be said about being the first to develop such a deterrent.

We could ask this question about developing firearms or TNT, as each lent themselves toward technological advancment in war.

Cheers

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:12 am

Also there were estimates that 1 million U.S. soldiers would have died in the invasion of the Japanese mainland if Truman hadn't dropped the bomb. That's a lot more life lost than there was from the bomb.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:25 am

Exactly. Forgot to mention that.

There you go

Cheers

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:27 am

Plus it sort of sent a message to the post-war world, especially Russia, saying "Don't mess with us".

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:35 am

Yup, hence my 'deterrent' comment.

Looks like it'll just be you and me, and since we agree, it'll be rather mild a conversation. Hehe...

Cheers

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:40 am

Actually I'm waiting for Menno to weigh in, though I have a hunch that he agrees too. Maybe Kashluk will provide a different view?

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:03 pm

God don't invite HIM. *sigh* Invite Menno, sure, he seems like an intelligent chap....but...the other guy...oh I can't even say his name... *walks away shaking head*

Cheers

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:05 pm

If you found a valid reason not to use an atomic bomb against an enemy that threatens your country, you might as well tell your soldiers to put their weapons down and jump onto the bajonets of the enemy.

War is war and war never changes. Hehe. Ok, I know know... but its true you know. Noone wants to loose, and they will do anything in their power not too.

Edit: If say, the US had kick started the Iraqi war with an atomic bomb, it would not had been justified though, since Iraqi has never been such big a threat to the US themselves. So to clarify: I dont think the use of nuclear weapons are justified in all wars, only as a last way out or a deterrent to war and keeping fo peace.

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:26 pm

You guys can't be serious.
Haven't you heard about how those estimates are lies and America actually started the Pacific War? Yea, I guess you're right. Nobody believes those fools.

I'm glad America got the nuke first. If any of the axis powers or the Soviet Union had gotten it first, there would be no freedom in the world.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:02 pm

Forty-six & Two wrote:If you found a valid reason not to use an atomic bomb against an enemy that threatens your country, you might as well tell your soldiers to put their weapons down and jump onto the bajonets of the enemy.

Well, I disagree there. Keep in mind, the bomb targets were military bases of some sort I believe, but there were about 200,000 civilian deaths. That's not 200,000 soldiers.

Viktor · Post by **Viktor** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:33 pm

As decrypted radio intercepts from Japanese High Command told the Allies that the Japanese had not only figured out where US forces would land if they invaded, but that the Japanese forces would outnumber and outgun any forces the US could muster during 1945.

Had the atomic option not been availble, the remaining choices which didn't include loosing at least 500,000 US soldiers/sailors/airmen where as follows:-

1. A complete Naval blockade combined with stratigic bombing of rail links and food storage centres to starve the Japanese into submission (use of chemical weapons to destroy the 1946 rice crop was being discused) - potential death toll of 3-4 million Japanese nationals

2. Sit back and allow the Soviet forces (who had halted their advance after fierce fighting in Sakhalin as agreed at the Yalta conference) to invade mainland Japan - potential death toll of 2-3 million Japanese nationals plus 500,000 - 1 million Soviet soldiers/sailors/airmen

Short of an unconditional Japanese surrender (politically and culturally highly unlikely) in early 1945, the use of the 2 atomic bombs to force the Japanese to surrender was the least costly military and political solution in terms of human life.

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:42 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:
Forty-six & Two wrote:If you found a valid reason not to use an atomic bomb against an enemy that threatens your country, you might as well tell your soldiers to put their weapons down and jump onto the bajonets of the enemy.
Well, I disagree there. Keep in mind, the bomb targets were military bases of some sort I believe, but there were about 200,000 civilian deaths. That's not 200,000 soldiers.

Soldiers - cvivilians. It doesnt matter in this case. Im talking country scale. Its your country or theirs. Its all about winning.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:51 pm

Forty-six & Two wrote:Soldiers - cvivilians. It doesnt matter in this case. Im talking country scale. Its your country or theirs. Its all about winning.

Fascist ideologies aside, I think one of the main points of concern over nuclear weapons is the horrible effects the radiation has that go far beyond the end of the war. I'm talking about mutations and shit. You've all probably seen the pictures of grownups with foot-long legs. A 20 Kiloton atom bomb really isn't the same as dropping 20,000 tons of TNT.

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:12 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:Fascist ideologies aside. I think one of the main points of concern over nuclear weapons is the horrible effects the radiation has that go far beyond the end of the war. I'm talking about mutations and shit. You've all probably seen the pictures of grownups with foot-long legs. A 20 Kiloton atom bomb really isn't the same as dropping 20,000 tons of TNT.

My point is just that any country at this point in time would have used the bomb if they had gotten it first. It was the instant win button. And it did end the conflict. People would have died either way. The difference is though, that the US had the choice to put all casulties on the side of the enemy and they did so.

True enough though. The casulties of the nuclear bombs detonated in Japan doesnt just add up to the people dieing instantly and shortafter the bomb. And I also think that the real questions of ethics comes in at that point. They fucked with the future generations, not only the ones that participated in the war. Was that was justified? I dont know. I guess noone really understood the consequenses back then, but I sure hope people do now and that it will let the next guy whos about to push the button think twice.

Jimmyjay86 · Post by **Jimmyjay86** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:14 pm

Nobody understands the complete consequences of something until after the fact so it was destined that atomic weapons would be used at some point. This is our nature. Right or wrong I think that alot was learned from this experience and it is something that will always be in the back of everyone's mind when dealing with nuclear weapons in the future.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:27 pm

Very true, JJ. When you really really think about it, Nagasaki and Hiroshima might've been more than justified - they might've been necessary in order to keep the cold war cold.

If no one would've seen the results of a nuclear attack, if there was no one to tell how much agony it causes way after the bombs drop, maybe... Just maybe US & USSR would've not hesitated using nukes to solve their conflict..

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:39 pm

war is war and there are no rules in all out war.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:21 pm

iohkus wrote:war is war and there are no rules in all out war.

There's no such thing as "all out war", just as Clausewitz's "Ideal War" (in which every action of the participants is geared toward the war effort) isn't realizable. When a war is "all out" it's simply an orgy of violence. War is an act of violence undertaken to achieve a political end. By its very nature war has to have both limitations, as well as rules.

This isn't just some "ethereal theory" that some nameless egghead somewhere cooked up, there are very real and practical issues at stake. If one side invariably shoots combatants attempting to surrender they will discourage others from trying to surrender and the ante is raised, causing more deaths than are necessary, which -- one would think -- is to be avoided.

Incidentally, just to wade into this topic a bit, but not dive in: proponents of using the atom bomb should take note of the fact that it was not the use of said bombs that caused the Japanese to surrender.

The Japanese had been trying to surrender as early as '44. Their first overtures were essentially attempts to simply end the fighting, a situation which -- under the circumstances -- would have been ending the war favorably in their eyes. But by the time of the Allied conference at Potsdam they were willing to surrender w/only one condition: that they be allowed to keep their emperor.

Nine months and several hundred thousand lives later they surrendered under just those terms, namely that the emperor was allowed to remain on the throne. So it was technically not the unconditional surrender that the Allies had insisted on.

There was great upheaval in the wake of the two bombings, with some factions wanting to surrender immediately and unconditionally, but the people who held the reins of power were still willing to go on fighting and there was certainly no sudden collapse on the part of the will of the Japanese to go on to the bitter end. That was something that Japanese society as a whole was more than willing to do.

The only other issue I'd like to touch on was that of the estimates of US casualties during Operation Downfall. The estimate of 500,000+ casualties came from the Chief of Staff, Marshall. (Yes, the fellow responsible for the plan of the same name.) Where he got those numbers from is a mystery. The various War Department projections were in the range of 20,000 to 30,000 casualties on the Allied side, not the much higher figures quoted by Marshall, who was the one who was briefing Truman.

As for the context of the bombings -- or for any type of history, really -- I don't think that simply saying that something needs to be seen in the light of the times excuses it, nor does looking at it through the lens of later values condemn it.

People should look at it two-fold. The first is in light of the times. That should give some insight into the dynamics that affect decisions like this. The other is through the lens of current (i.e. your own) values. In one light we get history as a tool for understanding human beings. In another we leave the discipline of History, and go straight into Ethics. The two shouldn't be confused, but they both have their uses.

My position is that it's still too early to tell. There is still so much information that is classified that hasn't been added to the puzzle that one really ought to say, "insufficient data for a meaningful answer". Add to this that emotions still run too high on either side of the issue and "we" are still in no position to get an accurate answer.

In the coming years this issue and others will undoubtedly be revisited, many, many times as more information comes to light. In addition to this we can also look forward to other things coming to light, such as the minutes of the surrender negotiations that the English conducted w/Germany in 1940, which won't be declassified until either 2015 or 2016. There's also the Warren Commission's findings in the Kennedy assassination and many, many others. Until then, please, no muckraking either way.

OTB

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:32 am

So, OTB, are you saying that the atomic bomb didn't help at all? That can't be right.

This might be a little off topic, but I hear that the Japanese people would have used sharpened bamboo sticks to fight off the Americans. It sounds hard to believe, I know, but would you fight with that sort of persistence if foreign invaders attacked your soil? What if it was your country that started the war?
I wonder if America would have surrendered unconditionally after being attacked with one atomic bomb. How many would it take for America to surrender?
I know none of these might really be all that applicable, but it's interesting to think about it.

Duck and Cover

Was the atom bomb justified?

Were the bombs justified?

Was the atom bomb justified?