Do you think President Truman did the right thing in dropping the bomb on Japan?

[Syntho-sis]

Was the correct decision made to drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

I have to write a paper about this in a few weeks, and I'm trying to find a stance to support. Convince me that it was the right or wrong decision.

 

Cheers,

[tomgwyther]

IMHO. I believe it was the wrong decision. At the time the bomb was dropped, Japan's military were largely defeated and the country's industrial infrastructure was crippled. Japan had also tried to negotiate peace talks with America.

It is likely that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a way for America to test it's new weapon. As neither city had sustained heavy aerial bombardment before. Dropping a bomb on them would provide data as to the destructive power of the atomic bomb.

 

here's some copy I found

Marshall said the desperate attempts at surrender were "premature." Going through the list of terrible battles in the Pacific while the Japanese were frantically attempting to end the war is mind-numbing.

 

Marshall was taking his orders from Harry Hopkins, who has been revealed as Stalin's most important agent in the US. Stalin never declared war on the Japanese and wanted the fighting to continue so that he could occupy Manchuria when he was ready, and when the Japanese were no longer able to resist. He didn't declare war on Japan until the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. Marshall still wouldn't accept surrender until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The anticipated effects of atom bombing were too interesting to forego.

 

further reading here

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

[padren]

With all the facts we know today, it could probably have been avoided. I don't know the nuances of all the facts, but if you want to argue Truman made the right decision, you can use the ambiguity of the situation as support. In that case, all you have to do is demonstrate is based on the facts Truman had, and all the unknowns, it was the safe bet to drop the bombs.

[SH3RL0CK]

Even with all we know today, I think there is a strong case that Truman made the right decision. Its a popular view today for people to sit back today and ask if dropping the A-bomb would be too harsh an action to take against "the enemy", or ask if we could have convinced them to surrender without dropping the bomb. It is quite another viewpoint if you are being shot at or if you are being tortured in a Japanese prison camp or if your children had died or been permanetly crippled at their hands during the war.

[Dudde]

If I remember, both countries knew they pissed the other off and knew something was coming to them. A nuclear warhead might have been a bit extreme

 

Going through the list of terrible battles in the Pacific while the Japanese were frantically attempting to end the war is mind-numbing.

Admittedly I was bored out of my mind learning history, but I don't remember the Japanese trying to end the war. Any references on that?

[Syntho-sis]

If I remember, both countries knew they pissed the other off and knew something was coming to them. A nuclear warhead might have been a bit extreme

 

 

Admittedly I was bored out of my mind learning history, but I don't remember the Japanese trying to end the war. Any references on that?

 

I think the idea was pretty much 'kill the enemy or die trying.'

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_no_surrender_04.shtml

 

But did the innocent civilians that inhabited the cities deserve to die in such an extreme way?

[Dudde]

Thanks, an interesting read, but doesn't point at the Japanese trying to end the war. Almost on the contrary in fact.

 

Personally I'm against killing civilians in a war, and against the war in the first place, but it would be almost naive to believe that we could protect a country without having to resort to violence when a country openly declares war on you =\

 

so no, they did not, but neither did the British, or the people staying at Pearl Harbor. I still believe action needed to be taken, but I do feel sorry for the loss of so many Japanese.

[Sisyphus]

One thing to remember about the atomic bombs is that while the weapons were novel, the strategy was not. Whole cities had been destoyed from the air before, with tens of thousands of civilians killed at a time. So there's really three questions. 1) Are such tactics ever justifiable? 2) Were they justifiable in these two cases? and 3) How do the particular weapons used (lone atomic bombs, instead of thousands of clusterbombs or whatever) affect the justifiability?

[Severian]

I believe it was wrong, simply out of principle. It was a deliberate targeting of civilians. Once you do that, you are as bad as the enemy. (But as Sisyphus implies, I would also say bombings like Dresden were wrong.)

[SH3RL0CK]

One thing to remember about the atomic bombs is that while the weapons were novel, the strategy was not. Whole cities had been destoyed from the air before, with tens of thousands of civilians killed at a time. So there's really three questions. 1) Are such tactics ever justifiable? 2) Were they justifiable in these two cases? and 3) How do the particular weapons used (lone atomic bombs, instead of thousands of clusterbombs or whatever) affect the justifiability?

 

Good point, what really was the difference for the civilians between the A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo?

 

FYI, The incendary bombs dropped onto the very highly flammable city when the wind was blowing at 70 mph (110 kph) resulted in an incredibly intense fire which destroyed the city in a manner not much different than atomic weapons would have.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

 

Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs

[A Tripolation]

From what I've read, even after they were hit with the nukes, the war council was deadlocked 3-3 on whether or not to surrender. The Emperor broke the tie and decided to surrender, and many attribute that to the fact that he saw that the atomic bombs were as devastating as those fire bombings, but they only needed one bomb and plane to do it. He feared that America had many more than the two we dropped on them (we didn't).

 

Judging from how they fought to the bitter death to hold the islands in the pacific, I think it's a pretty safe assumption to say that we would've had to invade the actual island of Japan and fight its every inhabitant to get the Japanese to surrender. I think more civilians would've died that way than anything else.

 

It was a deliberate targeting of civilians. Once you do that, you are as bad as the enemy.

 

I think the Bataan Death March and all the other war crimes committed by the Japanese justified the act of dropping the nukes on Japan for most Americans back then.

[bascule]

In 20/20 hindsight, I cannot in good conscience condone the use of nuclear weapons, sorry

[JohnB]

Yes, it was the right decision. It was the best choice out of a bad list.

 

At the time the bomb was dropped, Japan's military were largely defeated and the country's industrial infrastructure was crippled. Japan had also tried to negotiate peace talks with America.

Roughly 2.5 million men under arms and 12,500 combat aircraft available and the military was "largely defeated"? Think again.

 

I have posted this before, but it must need repeating. This map shows Japanese holdings as at the 1 st August 1945.

 

Also, could you provide some sort of evidence that Japan had "tried to negotiate peace talks with America"? Your link provides Magic intercepts that show the opposite. In fact, if you read this link (Document 64 b) on the page you linked to, you will see that this is the first surrender offer.

 

In 20/20 hindsight, I cannot in good conscience condone the use of nuclear weapons, sorry

I had all sorts of comments for this , but seriously, why? Given the time we are talking about, why is it worse to use a nuke than bombs, bullets, firestorms and starvation? (Which were the other options)

 

I know you are big on human rights etc. I can't see how it's ethically worse to use a nuke (given the times) to wipe out a city compared to firestorming one. Why was Hiroshima ethically worse than Hamburg or Dresden? I've read survivors accounts for all these cities and personally find H & D to be far worse.

 

I'd like your thoughts please.

[Syntho-sis]

I know you are big on human rights etc. I can't see how it's ethically worse to use a nuke (given the times) to wipe out a city compared to firestorming one. Why was Hiroshima ethically worse than Hamburg or Dresden? I've read survivors accounts for all these cities and personally find H & D to be far worse.

 

Yea personally, from what I've read about Dresden, It was alot worse. With the nuke most people were vaporized before they even heard it blow. But then there was the radiation sickness and the genetic defects and cancer. That was pretty horrible too.

[bascule]

I know you are big on human rights etc. I can't see how it's ethically worse to use a nuke (given the times) to wipe out a city compared to firestorming one. Why was Hiroshima ethically worse than Hamburg or Dresden?

 

Being against nuclear weapons makes me pro-firebombing? Zuh?

 

The firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, etc was morally reprehensible.

[Dudde]

Not that I'm trying to instigate, I see the bombs being dropped as the lesser of the evils available at the time today in regards to helping to stop the war. After seeing the capabilities of this massive devastation, not many countries would continue a war and risk more bombs being dropped. In this regard, I see the nuclear bomb as being the right call.

 

In personal views, I would rather avoid killing anyone and trying to find alternate means of reconciliation or ending a war, but as I stated earlier, would be naive to think that were possible.

 

To Bascule:

What alternatives would you have suggested in the time to help end the war favorably, without resorting to the casualties we saw from the said bombings - whether it would've ended the war as quickly or not?

[ydoaPs]

I thought it was Whale and Dolphin that dropped the bombs.

[bascule]

What alternatives would you have suggested in the time to help end the war favorably, without resorting to the casualties we saw from the said bombings - whether it would've ended the war as quickly or not?

 

I don't know. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the history of WWII to even begin to make a suggestion.

 

However I cannot, in good conscience, ever condone the use of a nuclear weapon, unless more people are doomed to die if the weapon isn't used than if it is.

[A Tripolation]

However I cannot, in good conscience, ever condone the use of a nuclear weapon, unless more people are doomed to die if the weapon isn't used than if it is.

 

And many historians believe exactly that.

There really was no alternative that would have been less evil.

[bascule]

And many historians believe exactly that.

There really was no alternative that would have been less evil.

 

If we hadn't dropped the bombs, over 220,000 people would've died who otherwise wouldn't have?

 

I find that premise hard to substantiate.

 

Also, we're talking about a large number of children here. The city of Hiroshima, expecting a firebombing, had all the native children clearing fire breaks/fire lanes, so they were all outside directly beneath the blast when it occurred.

[A Tripolation]

If we hadn't dropped the bombs, over 220,000 people would've died who otherwise wouldn't have?

 

I find that premise hard to substantiate.

 

Well, look at how much they fought to hold useless islands in the pacific. They were shelled for weeks on end by battleships, and yet they continued. And then they would fight until the very end, and more often than not, the IJA never surrendered.

 

So how do you think they would react to an invasion of their HOMELAND? Do you honestly think they would have just let us waltz in their unopposed? I think it's safe to say that most of the inhabitants would fight (which would include untrained civilians) and they would all be shot by the allies.

 

So civilians die either way, as a result of them being directly involved a la the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, or they would've been killed by artillery strikes or bombers (which wouldn't be aiming for them, but at the IJA stationed in those places). And then, all the allied soldiers that DIDN'T fight in Japan (because they surrendered) would have to fight in Japan, and quite a few of those men would have died as well.

 

Seems pretty easy to substantiate, IMO.

 

The city of Hiroshima, expecting a firebombing, had all the native children clearing fire breaks/fire lanes, so they were all outside directly beneath the blast when it occurred.

 

This further reinforces the supposition that the Japanese would have mandated that all able people fight, had we invaded Japan directly.

 

For the record, I seriously doubt that I could've ordered the dropping of the nukes, on account of all the children that would die. But looking back, I don't see how they had much of a choice. The only other options were

 

• Continued firebombings

• Blockades with the idea to starve them out

• An all-out assault on Japan

 

Tell me, how could ANY of those result in less civilian deaths?

Edited November 4, 2009 by A Tripolation

[bascule]

The only other options were

 

Why are these the only options?

 

Tell me, how could ANY of those result in less civilian deaths?

 

Well, as you're the one claiming that they'd all result in more deaths, can you actually support that claim somehow?

 

Why would any of the available options necessarily incur a higher death toll than using a nuclear weapon?

 

If nuclear weapons are so effective at ending wars, why haven't we used them in all subsequent wars? Why didn't we nuke Vietnam?

[A Tripolation]

Can you come up with any other options? I'm sure I'm missing some variants, but those seem to be the main three. Are you saying that they would have agreed to peace talks while they were not under immediate threat of being overrun?

 

can you actually support that claim somehow?

Let me just run and travel to the alternate universes where those scenarios occurred and get the relevant data on civilian deaths.

 

How in the world could I have studies on that? It's just plain common sense, based on history of people and wars before that (and after, as with vietnam).

 

If nuclear weapons are so effective at ending wars, why haven't we used them in all subsequent wars? Why didn't we nuke Vietnam?

 

Oh yes, we could have detonated several thermonuclear weapons in that area and ended all resistance. Luckily, we withdrew before that happened (as it was proposed, by Robert Mcnamara, IIRC). We couldn't just withdraw from our engagement with Japan. Two entirely different situations.

[bascule]

How in the world could I have studies on that? It's just plain common sense, based on history of people and wars before that (and after, as with vietnam)

 

So you base your decision to use nuclear weapons to end the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on "just plain common sense".

 

I'm sorry, I need more justification than that.

[padren]

Why are these the only options?

 

Well, as you're the one claiming that they'd all result in more deaths, can you actually support that claim somehow?

 

Why would any of the available options necessarily incur a higher death toll than using a nuclear weapon?

 

If nuclear weapons are so effective at ending wars, why haven't we used them in all subsequent wars? Why didn't we nuke Vietnam?

 

If we invaded the the interior of Japan, isn't it reasonable to assume at least one battle on the scale of Okinawa would have occurred? If so, that alone would amount to the number of casualties.

 

If we had continued firebombing, judging by the fact a single raid killed about 100k people I think it's quite reasonable to assume firing bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki among other Japanese cities would have resulted in a higher death toll than by the nuclear bombs.

 

Starving Japan out with sanctions could have been attempted, but considering the historical impact on civilians (while much debated) I think it is fairly reasonable to make the leap that the death toll could have exceeded that of the nuclear blasts.

 

Honestly, the only reason I can see for not dropping the bombs, is if the war could have been ended without further military action as any continuing commitment from Japanese forces would likely have rendered higher death tolls.

 

But lets call that unproven. Lets say I cannot possibly demonstrate with any degree of conclusiveness that the death toll would have been higher. It's a fact that while I can draw what I think are reasonable conclusions, I can't actually know with certainty.

 

In light of that, we look at the choices they had at that time: not knowing how many would die if they didn't drop the bomb, and not knowing how many would die if they did. Every day more people die, and the Japanese continue to kill more people.

This was a global war that exhausting all involved and killing millions of people - and they had a weapon that could help end it.

 

Out of curiosity, would you have condoned a nuclear response if the Japanese had dropped a nuclear bomb on US forces first?

 

 

Secondly, about Vietnam - weren't we taking sides within a civil war on that one? How do you "help" a country fight for it's land by nuking...it's land? Not to mention, for political reasons the Cold War made such a move far more dangerous.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So you base your decision to use nuclear weapons to end the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on "just plain common sense".

 

Is there really any difference whether the weapons are nuclear or not? Does it really make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of lives ended if they involve fission or chemical reactions?