Was dropping the atomic bombs the right thing to do?

[bhchao]

The debate over the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has renewed recently with the 60th anniversary of Japan's surrender in WWII.

The dropping of the bombs brought an end to the war in the Pacific. However the event also marked the beginning of a dangerous nuclear age, where countries today vie to join the elite group of countries possessing nuclear weapons. It also set a precedent that future nuclear powers might emulate in future conflicts.

The attacks quickly brought Japan's surrender. On the other hand, they killed 200,000 Japanese civilians, poisoned the soil in both cities for an extended period of time, with radiation effects still present today in many survivors.

Personally I think Truman made the right decision to drop the first atomic bomb, but not the second since the Japanese were already giving signals that they were going to surrender after Hiroshima. However I am sure that there are people who will disagree with me by saying that dropping even the first one was unwarranted. I think Hiroshima was necessary because it potentially saved millions of Allied and Japanese lives by preventing an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Some supporters of the decision to drop the bombs point to Japanese atrocities in WWII as justification. However there is a saying: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". In other words, just because they did it to us doesn't mean we are going to fall to their level by doing the same thing to them.

What are your thoughts on this? Please try to keep emotional sentiments out of this and view it from an ethical or logical perspective (ex. Japanese fighting to the death if an invasion of Japan was launched).

On a side note, Kyoto was one of the cities targeted for the atomic bomb. General Leslie Groves, who oversaw the development of the atomic bomb in New Mexico, wanted to drop the bomb on Kyoto. But Secretary of War Henry Stimson ruled him out by saying that Kyoto was Japan's cultural capital and destroying it would be an unwarranted act of vandalism, just like what happened at Dresden.

[gougou]

I agree that the first one was right. No. In fact, make that I agree that the second was wrong.

Also to the first one there might have been alternatives. One option considered by the US for a while was dropping the bomb on one of the uninhabited islands off the coast. However, this was later discarded because only two bombs were available, and were considered to precious for demonstrations of military might.

One can argue about what would have been right here, and there is certainly enough arguments to support either side.

What I consider the one big mistake of the American's at that time (and while most of us don't drop nuclear bombs for a living, we can all learn from that one!) was not taking into account the culture they were dealing with. Japan was probably one of the proudest nations of the world, and to accept nothign less than unconditional surrender was probably not a wise act.

Furthermore, the Japanese emperor was, in the eyes of the Japanese, just short of a god, and as far as I recall, the US were demanding to put away with this system.

Of course there are more things that, in retrospect, could have been dealt with differently, these are just the ones that I can relate to a lot...

[spencer4554]

Im not sure this argument really matters after 60 years, but that is debateable. I think the relevant fact is that America dropped the first, and the second nuclear bombs. Are we to drop the third as well?

Paul

[geraldc]

The japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb, nor did they make any overtures of surrender, as a result they got hit by the second bomb. The atomic bomb was an experimental weapon, the US really weren't aware of the secondary effects of radiation sickness etc. Given the information they had at the time, I think both bombs were justified.

General MacArthur got fired during the Korean war for refusing to rule out the use of nukes against China.

[Outofin]

There are always better options. Like, drop a nuke bomb over a Japanese island without residents, let them see the island sinking into the sea, pronounce another bomb will be dropped in Tokyo in 3 days if they don’t surrender. In this regard, even the first bomb might not be necessary.

If we all could act this way, there should have been no wars in the first place. So I have to take the history as it was.

If we use the history as a way to predict our future behaviors, I have no doubt nuclear weapon will be used again in a similar situation. Fortunately, I don’t think a similar situation will happen again.

[大肚子]

It's certainly fair to say that dropping the bombs was not necessary to end the war. There is plenty of historical evidence to show that the Japanese government was, with the exception of a few holdouts (who would fall in line with the Emperor, anyway), ready for surrender. The only sticking point was keeping the Emperor; the Japanese were not willing to offer an unconditional surrender if it meant losing the Emperor. The Allies were not willing to give them the chance of keeping the Emperor, but then let them keep him anyway. Had they offered it at first I think it's pretty certain the Japanese would have surrendered.

It is interesting, however, when reading Truman's diaries and memos how often Stalin and the USST figure in discussions on whether to drop the bomb. I think it's clear that the bombs were dropped in large part, perhaps even mainly, to act as a warning to the USSR. When considering this we can speculate as to what would have happened if Truman hadn't had dropped the bomb. Would it have made it more likely that the USSR, USA or China would have used their bombs against one of the other two? It's pure speculation but if Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped prevent nuclear war between the USSR and USA or the USSR and China then in some ways they were the right thing to do (though not done for the right reasons) .

[Outofin]

The atomic bomb was an experimental weapon, the US really weren't aware of the secondary effects of radiation sickness etc.

It’s a little doubtful to me that they didn’t know about the radiation. They were brilliant enough to invent the weapon but they were not trained with the basic engineer skills to evaluate the effects? Was there any scientist got trouble when investigating the explosion test site directly?

It's pure speculation but if Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped prevent nuclear war between the USSR and USA or the USSR and China then in some ways they were the right thing to do (though not done for the right reasons) .

The reasoning is awesome.

No, I didn’t mean that.

If I were Japanese, thinking they died in a war makes me sad, thinking they died in an experiment that was meant to threat Russians would make me furious.

[rpurdie1]

"It's certainly fair to say that dropping the bombs was not necessary to end the war."

Fairness is subjective based upon motive.

"There is plenty of historical evidence to show that the Japanese government was, with the exception of a few holdouts (who would fall in line with the Emperor, anyway), ready for surrender."

And there is at least an equal - if not greater - amount of evidence indicating that the Japanese would have fought to the last man, a threat they repeated frequently both to Allied military personnel and foreign diplomats.

"The only sticking point was keeping the Emperor; the Japanese were not willing to offer an unconditional surrender if it meant losing the Emperor."

This was far from the "only" sticking point that the Japanese presented. Complete disarmament was never even agreed upon by the Japanese prior to Hiroshima.

"The Allies were not willing to give them the chance of keeping the Emperor, but then let them keep him anyway. Had they offered it at first I think it's pretty certain the Japanese would have surrendered."

I'm delighted that you "think" the Japanese would have surrended. There are, however, at least tens of thousands of Japanese and perhaps a tenth as many Allied soldiers and their families who are grateful that someone else thought differently.

"It is interesting, however, when reading Truman's diaries and memos how often Stalin and the USST figure in discussions on whether to drop the bomb. I think it's clear that the bombs were dropped in large part, perhaps even mainly, to act as a warning to the USSR."

To imply that Truman's primary goal in dropping the atomic bombs was anything other than ending the war with Japan is ridiculous. In any military or political action, there are always a myriad of outcomes and results. Prudent leaders consider all of them that are forseeable.

"When considering this we can speculate as to what would have happened if Truman hadn't had dropped the bomb. Would it have made it more likely that the USSR, USA or China would have used their bombs against one of the other two? It's pure speculation but if Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped prevent nuclear war between the USSR and USA or the USSR and China then in some ways they were the right thing to do (though not done for the right reasons)."

Hypothetically (and only hypothetically), if we accept that Truman's motivation in levelling Hiroshima and nearly levelling Nagasaki was merely to threaten the Soviets and thereby avoid a nuclear exchange, how can anyone in good conscience say that it was not done for "the right reason"? Do you have any idea how many humans would die in a nuclear exchange between TWO powers?!?

[paul62tiger]

I would have to agree that both bombs were needed.

The Japanese would have killed and been killed by the thousand to defend their homeland. This saved many lives both in WW2 and up to today. I think that without these two events we would have seen war between the US and USSR and/or China.

I don't like the idea of the bomb, but so far it has saved us from further world wars.

Now we have a new problem, terrorist getting hold of one from a country like Iran. More dangerous then any superpower.

[geraldc]

The bomb was cutting edge, they made 3 bombs, one was tested on July 16th in the US, and the other 2 were used in Japan 3 weeks later. Before the initial test the scientists weren't even sure if the bomb would set off a chain reaction destroying the world.

The first bomb was tested in the desert, and everyone was well away from the fall out etc, so there'd never been an occassion before were people were subject to a nuclear explosion. The bomb was designed to kill, so I doubt they really gave much thought about if a percentage of the victims died more slowly than the others.

[nipponman]

I'm not so sure. It is hyped up that "Japanese would have killed by the 1000s and vice versa," etc. but if you think about it, the number of dead from both bombs and radiation over the years has probably equalled the number that would have been killed if they didn't use the bombs.

[geraldc]

The nukes weren't really that much more deadly than conventional bombing, the firebombing of Dresden killed 140,000, but that took waves of bombers and thousands of bombs as opposed to 1 plane and 1 bomb.

A conventional invasion would have been far more costly, there were 2.5 million Japanese soldiers on the home islands. Plus Truman's main concern was the lives of American service men not the Japanese, why sacrifice thousands of American lives, when he could end it all with 2 bombs.

[bhchao]

The experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa probably convinced Truman and American military leaders that the Japanese were going to the fight to the last man if an invasion of Japan was launched. At Saipan, Japanese soldiers fought to the last man (well not literally), and women and children threw themselves off cliffs to prevent themselves from suffering the disgrace of being captured alive.

I think that the atomic bomb could have been avoided had Truman and the Allies been more flexible with the Japanese right after the Potsdam Declaration. Tokyo's response to the ultimatum was that the "sovereignty of the emperor not be compromised", which the Allies rejected. In response Japan decided to reject the ultimatum.

[nipponman]

While all this may be true, it was my impression that the whole reason that the Japanese attacked the Americans was because the Americans cheated them in some sort of oil deal

and the Japanese needed it or something like that.

[geraldc]

Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbour until 1941, they invaded China in 1937.

Japan was the aggressor nation. If you look at the political history of Japan, the army was staging coups, killing politicians they disagreed with etc. The army favoured an expansionist policy, and after spending years getting ready for a war, decided to attack first.

[wushijiao]

The experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa probably convinced Truman and American military leaders that the Japanese were going to the fight to the last man if an invasion of Japan was launched.

I was going to post something about Iwo Jima, but you beat me to the punch.

It's easy in hindsight to make easy assumptions. Japan was getting weak and wouldn't have put up a fight. Similarly, neo-cons thought Iraq was weak and wouldn't have put up a fight. It turns out you only need a few mountains and some guns to fight a guerilla war, as Mao proved pre-1945. The Japanese could have fought forever, with the US bombing and killing civilians in "total war".

Fighting a ground war on the "enemy's" home country is never easy, and probably bound for disaster.

Certainly, dropping the bombs were the best idea from an American military and occupied Asia point of view. The best arguement against it, I suppose, is that the US could have bombed an island to demonstrate to the Japanese the effectiveness of the bombs. Certainly, this is a valid point. But, what if that hadn't have convinced the Japanese military leaders to cease the war? That would have been a disaster from everyone involved. A land war would have killed thousands of Japanese and American military, air bombings under LeMay would have continued, killing thousands and thousands of civilians, and millions of people would have continued to be killed, raped, and worked to death as slaves in the occupied lands of Asia.

I just voted "yes" for dropping the bombs because it seems that it destroys the least amount of net lives. It's horrible to say that, but I think it was the best option among the unclear variables known at the time.

[大肚子]

If I were Japanese, thinking they died in a war makes me sad, thinking they died in an experiment that was meant to threat Russians would make me furious.

I actually agree with you fully, which was my point in stating "for the wrong motives". However, I would still argue that if, and I grant it is only hypothetical, Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented a nuclear war then it can be seen as an act which brought about a greater good, even if it were a devastating act and even if the greater good was not actually planned.

Fairness is subjective based upon motive.

Well, let's just assume my motives to be neutral, or rather based on honest inquisition, for the time being, OK? We can change that assumption if it becomes obvious later.

And there is at least an equal - if not greater - amount of evidence indicating that the Japanese would have fought to the last man, a threat they repeated frequently both to Allied military personnel and foreign diplomats.

I'm really not sure about that. Granted, there were individuals, especially War Minister Anami, who were determined to hold out. And they were still determined to hold out after Hiroshima and Nagaski. They were outnumbered by those seeking surrender, however (as is shown by the Big 6 vote after the Potsdam Declaration). As far as the evidence the telegrams to the Russians seeking a peace (before Hiroshima, and intercepted by the US) are pretty telling:

July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".

July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war"

July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain

July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."

July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war."

I'm delighted that you "think" the Japanese would have surrended. There are, however, at least tens of thousands of Japanese and perhaps a tenth as many Allied soldiers and their families who are grateful that someone else thought differently.

With all due respect that's needless hyperbole. Yes, I think the Japanese would have surrendered, the evidence tends to point that way. However, it is, inevitably, mere speculation. Neither of us know the truth.

To imply that Truman's primary goal in dropping the atomic bombs was anything other than ending the war with Japan is ridiculous. In any military or political action, there are always a myriad of outcomes and results. Prudent leaders consider all of them that are forseeable.

Obviously. Indeed, Truman would have been remiss had he not considred the position of the USSR at the end of the war, given the uneasy nature of the alliance. However, the sheer volume of references to the USSR in the memos and telegrams is telling. I advise anyone truly interested in this topic to seek them out and make their own conclusions. They're avaliable in "Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman" by Robert Ferrell.

Hypothetically (and only hypothetically), if we accept that Truman's motivation in levelling Hiroshima and nearly levelling Nagasaki was merely to threaten the Soviets and thereby avoid a nuclear exchange, how can anyone in good conscience say that it was not done for "the right reason"? Do you have any idea how many humans would die in a nuclear exchange between TWO powers?!?

Of course I agree preventing nuclear war was a good thing. My point in saying "for the wrong reasons" is that there is, at least, no evidence that preventing nuclear war was Truman's primary motive, there is no mention of the possibility of nuclear war at all. Rather it seems (and I will grant here I am reading heavily between the lines of the papers as well as, truth be told, working from memory) that Truman was interesting in cowing the USSR, while the advisors he was listening to were at least in large part motivated by domestic political considerations. I personally do not find either of these sufficient motive to justify so many deaths (though personally I find the British bombing of Dresden more abhorrent).

It's easy in hindsight to make easy assumptions

The point is, however, it wasn't just a matter of hindsight. The US administration was aware of the Japanese telegrams to the Russians and there were plenty of people both with the administration and amongst America's allies who argued against demanding unconditional surrender.

The best arguement against it, I suppose, is that the US could have bombed an island to demonstrate to the Japanese the effectiveness of the bombs. Certainly, this is a valid point. But, what if that hadn't have convinced the Japanese military leaders to cease the war?

Actually the best argument against it is that the US could have offered a conditional surrender rather than unconditional. And the Japanese military leaders weren't convinced to cease the war even after Hiroshima. It was only the Emperor's direct statement in favour of surrender that swayed things. And that was influenced by the direct threat to his life that the atomic bombs presented. So in that sense, yes, the bombs helped end the war. However, I still believe that had the US offered the Japanese the chance to retain the Emperor then he would have come out in favour of surrender. Same outcome. The problem is, simply speaking, there were not enough people aware of the special role of the Emperor in Japanese politics and culture who had the President's ear before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[nipponman]

Originally Posted by wushijiao

The best arguement against it, I suppose, is that the US could have bombed an island to demonstrate to the Japanese the effectiveness of the bombs. Certainly, this is a valid point. But, what if that hadn't have convinced the Japanese military leaders to cease the war?

We'll never know now, will we.

[gougou]

We'll never know now, will we.

That's why spencer4554 has a point when saying we should worry more about a possible third than about the first two.

[Outofin]

The best arguement against it, I suppose, is that the US could have bombed an island to demonstrate to the Japanese the effectiveness of the bombs. Certainly, this is a valid point. But, what if that hadn't have convinced the Japanese military leaders to cease the war?

If wushijiao was talking about my earlier post, let me say it a little more if I didn't say it clearly.

I said,

"There are always better options. Like, drop a nuke bomb over a Japanese island without residents, let them see the island sinking into the sea, pronounce another bomb will be dropped in Tokyo in 3 days if they don’t surrender. In this regard, even the first bomb might not be necessary.

If we all could act this way, there should have been no wars in the first place. So I have to take the history as it was."

What I meant was, go ahead and drop the bomb if they don't surrender. That would be the best effort we can do. And there would be less people questioning the bombs today. Again, I didn't take the thought seriously and this kind of plan could never exist in reality.

Plus Truman's main concern was the lives of American service men not the Japanese, why sacrifice thousands of American lives, when he could end it all with 2 bombs.

This makes sense to me. Not too good, not too bad, easy to understand, comes natural... Some good-natured people try to avoid it or not to say it so starkly though.