Was the atom bomb justified?

[avenger69ie]

i think a demonstration would have sufficed, if japan had seen the devastation that one of these bombs could cause before it was dropped on two civilian cities, they would have surrendered. Too late now to rethink strategies though

[OnTheBounce]

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

Unfortunately, it looks like that was indeed the case. Remember that the Japanese lost far more people to the crushing air raids -- particularly the incendiary bombings -- they had been subjected to at that point than were killed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki together. Also note that the Japanese did not immediately sue for peace in the wake of Hiroshima, and even when they did sue for peace again, they still maintained that they would surrender only if the emperor were allowed to remain on the throne. I know it's commonly taught that they Japanese surrendered immediately after they recovered from the shock of loosing two cities to two bombs and that it was unconditional, but this thesis flies in the face of the record.

The US didn't help the matter much w/its widespread incendiary bombings. It really played right into the hands of the Japanese gov't's propaganda machine, which did a very good job of convincing the Japanese people that they could expect widespread atrocities from the US. Many prominent US citizens had made public statements that promised very bad things to the Japanese, especially in the wake of Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese gov't gleefully capitalized on these statements. As part of this campaign the Japanese PM said, "Don't judge the American's by their words, but by their actions." (Or words to that effect.) What were the US' actions? Incendiary bomb raids that sent entire cities up w/no differentiation between combatant and non-combatant. Put yourself in the position of a Japanese citizen, and I think you may understand why they were willing to offer fanatical resistance to any invasion attempt. Contrary to historic mythology, it wasn't simply the national character of the Japanese drunk on the sake of bushido.

The Japanese were having very severe morale problems due to the very effective US naval blockade, not to mention the near total destruction of Japan's merchant marine. The US could easily have let the Japanese sit and stew on their islands and they would have collapses internally rather rapidly. Of course, that path would have left the Soviets w/something of a free hand in Asia, and that wasn't something that the Western Allies were prepared to do.

Note I'm not advocating the thesis put forth back in ca. '65 by a scholar whose name I forget that the US used the bomb solely as a means to intimidate the Soviets, although I would say that it did play a part in the overall picture. I just think that the picture is not quite a simple as that.

While I will reiterate here that we don't have all of the pieces of the puzzle, there are some things that we can say w/reasonable certainty. For instance, the Truman administration did authorize the use of the bomb in order to minimize the impact on the Japanese population. While there was some concern for US casualties (and by 1945 the public was getting increasingly war-weary and didn't have the stomach for massive casualties) no concern whatsoever was lost of the fate of the Japanese people. It simply does not stand to reason that the administration that continued massive incendiary bombings started by the Roosevelt administration would suddenly wake up one morning and decide to drop the bomb out of humane consideration for lost Japanese lives, nor has anything like that been preserved in the minutes of any of the appropriate meetings, or journals, diaries, etc., that the people in question were keeping.

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?

The Japanese were running out of pretty much everything by early '45. I used to work w/a WWII veteran who was in the Army, an engineer who was attached to various Marine units (because as much shit as the USMC talks, it's not even a complete branch). He saw combat on Iwo Jima, Saipan and Okinawa among other places. He was talking one night about how on Saipan they came across a group of Japanese soldiers who had been killed, and all they had been armed with was .22 caliber carnival rifles. Single shot, no less. You know, determination is one thing, but it can only overcome so much of a material superiority, as the Japanese should have learned in their self-destructive banzai charges. (It was these that usually turned the tide of casualties far in favor of the attacking Allies, who by all military logic should have been suffering equal or greater casualties considering the terrain, etc., even w/their crushing air and naval gunfire support superiority.)

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 wouldn't expect too ferocious a resistance from the vast majority of US citizens. No, not because we've become a nation of pacifists, but rather because we, as a nation, are too used to seeing combat in grainy images on news programs, or in movie theatres. Look how many of people saw what happened on 9/11 and said, "it looked like something out of a movie." This is also a common comment from soldiers seeing their first combat, for instance, I noticed that Bowden got that response from quite a few of the younger Rangers he interviewed for Blackhawk Down, and a lot of the people I was in the Gulf War with said the same thing.

OTB

[Menno]

i think a demonstration would have sufficed, if japan had seen the devastation that one of these bombs could cause before it was dropped on two civilian cities, they would have surrendered. Too late now to rethink strategies though

Haha, are you advocating that they should have dropped an atomic bomb on a city that had nothing to do with Japan? Even though they did drop one on US soil, but I doubt the Japanese even after seeing a video of the bomb's effects would change their stance, they'd probably think it was doctored up or a hoax. But remember, Japan didn't surrender until after the second bomb dropped (three days after the first I believe) so they were well aware of the destruction it could have caused after viewing the first. It's also worth noting that they still didn't immediately surrender after the SECOND bomb either, but they said "Surrender is coming soon". So president Truman gave clearance to allow one more bombing campaign, this time targeting the Nippon Oil Refinery, Japan's last oil production facility. Once that was eliminated, I believe that's when Japan formally surrendered.

Everyone here mentioned many good points, and I'll post my thoughts on it by Thursday because I'm too fucking tired.

[Stainless]

Everyone here mentioned many good points, and I'll post my thoughts on it by Thursday because I'm too fucking tired.

Roll on the encylopedias

But back to topic, I view the bombs as advocated. From someone who lost family to the Japanease death camps, I see the bombs as a means to an end. In a scale of loss of life, I'm sure it would of been more sevre if the bombs hadn't been dropped. I'm not too up to date on my WW2 country resources, but I get an idle thought of the Japanease bombing of Darwin in 1943, and if the Japanease were capable of pushing further inland. But as I said before, I'm a little in the dark as if Japan had the resources to do so. (we had solders with planks of wood made to look like guns)

[vent]note: I'd just like to say how much I hate my fucking computer. Not only did it shit itself the first time I clicked submit, it screwwed over my modem royally. Forcing me to reboot. Upon reboot the modem refused to load pages after 2 minutes, and forced me to reboot yet again. Finally I got it working when it shate itself AGAIN. However this time a swift reconnect was all that was required.[/vent]

[avenger69ie]

menno, excuse the typing, i'm temporarily minus one finger, work related mishap.

i'm not advocating teh bomb being dropped o nany city, a demonstartion with japanese officials at the scene along with us military etc.. on say, a pacific island with zero human population, let teh japanese guys survey teh damage and give them the ultimatum. why kill more people when a zero fatality demonstartion can end teh war in the us's favour? Liek i Said already, this was 60 years ago, its a bit late to be asking whether it was justified or not, the bombs ultimately ended that war, the loss of life throughout the entire war is astronomical anyway, when you put teh nukes deaths and casualties against teh entire wars dead, its not up to much. Anyway my point is, the bombs IMO didnt have to be dropped on any city in japan or elsewhere.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

Anyway my point is, the bombs IMO didnt have to be dropped on any city in japan or elsewhere.

wheres the fun in that?
plus they would be down one bomb and it might not change anything.

i figure they had to do something to end the war with japan and nukes were the best choice. even tho a full assault of infantry and air may have allowed japan to be taken it would have been at a great cost of life to both sides. nukes allowed for casualties on the side that didnt matter.

[Forty-six & Two]

wheres the fun in that?

Newsflash: Nuclear warfare isnt supposed to be fun

[Stainless]

And the "side that mattered"? That all depends on a matter of perspective, eh?

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

isnt everything based on perspective?

[Forty-six & Two]

isnt everything based on perspective?

I agree with that. From the US perspective Japan didnt matter all that much. They were the enemy and who wants to risk their lives as soldiers when they can drop bombs from a distance. On a long term basis it doesnt work out though, since now "everyone" has nukes and you can bet on getting one back up your ass if you "fire ze shit"

[Mihail]

theres no way you can say, civilian deaths were worth it, consider 9/11, then add about 100 other twin towers