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

[bascule]

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?

 

Yes, it does. In addition to the 220,000 people killed by the bombs, they also left people countless people suffering for the rest of their lives due to radiation exposure, and also lead to widespread birth defects.

[padren]

Just a side note: I am strongly against the use of nuclear weapons. I think the proposed development of "Cute Nukes" as tactical bunker busters is an exceptionally bad move. Much like the use of depleted uranium in shells, I think the long term costs and impacts outweigh the military advantage in any sort of conflict other than an all out war for survival.

 

I am also in favor of the land mine ban. That said, WWII was an all out, global war that was cutting nations around the world down to the bone. They were exhausted, tired, and fighting for their lives and the lives of their allies. The use of new weapon technologies to end the war as quickly as possible is something I personally cannot fault them for. I am sure Japan would have used nuclear weapons, as would any other nation should they have developed them first. It was an era of limited information and unknowns, including the weapons ultimately used.

[A Tripolation]

I wonder why bascule didn't address the rest of your post, padren...

Seems to me that was the only one he had a rebuttal for.

 

The use of new weapon technologies to end the war as quickly as possible is something I personally cannot fault them for.

Damn well said.

[bascule]

Please note that I don't fault them for it. It was a tough decision either way, and I don't downplay that.

 

I'm just saying, in 20/20 hindsight, having visited the Hiroshima Peace Park and seen the devastation the bombs wrought firsthand, I would not have dropped the bombs. That is all.

[Severian]

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

 

That is very subjective and depends on how you quantify 'evil'. I personally think the bombing of Dresden was evil too.

 

I don't think we should be living our lives, measuring ourselves in comparison to others. Just because my actions may be 'less evil' than my neighbour's doesn't make me good and him evil. We should be judging ourselves on our conduct every day, being rigorous not to do any acts with think are morally compromised (however we may define that, and I leave that up to you).

 

Personally, I would never have ordered the dropping of the bomb, because it is an evil act.

 

[slightly off topic, but on a similar notion, I wouldn't kill one person in order to save the lives of millions.]

[A Tripolation]

Personally, I would never have ordered the dropping of the bomb, because it is an evil act.

 

[slightly off topic, but on a similar notion, I wouldn't kill one person in order to save the lives of millions.]

 

But they weren't doing it to be evil. They did it to end a world war.

War is a necessary evil. How could Hitler have been stopped by anything other than war?

 

And really? I've never met anyone that wouldn't kill one to save a million (though I seriously doubt I could do the act myself). But this is fairly off topic.

[padren]

Yes, it does. In addition to the 220,000 people killed by the bombs, they also left people countless people suffering for the rest of their lives due to radiation exposure, and also lead to widespread birth defects.

 

That is a fair point, and I don't want to sound cruel but I wouldn't mind putting an actual number to the "countless" people mentioned. I still think the suffering could easily have been higher if the bombs had not been used - both in death toll, and subsequent cost to civilians in a ever more resource strained Japan. The suffering would probably have been more short term - culminating in death rather than post-war lives with radiation exposure or birth defects - but I doubt it would have been on a smaller scale.

 

Do you have any idea what the numbers look like for those suffering from radiation and birth defects?

 

I'm trying to go by this:

The surviving victims of the bombings are called hibakusha (被爆者?), a Japanese word that literally translates to "explosion-affected people." The suffering caused by the bombing has led Japan to seek the abolition of nuclear weapons from the world ever since, exhibiting one of the world's firmest non-nuclear policies. As of March 31, 2009[update], 235,569 hibakusha were recognized by the Japanese government, most living in Japan.[73] The government of Japan recognizes about 1% of these as having illnesses caused by radiation.[74] The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the hibakusha who are known to have died since the bombings. Updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2009[update] the memorials record the names of more than 410,000 hibakusha—263,945[75] in Hiroshima and 149,226[76] in Nagasaki.

 

410,000 is a lot of people. With reference to my numbers above, it would take a number of battles, or at least one serious one and sanctions to add up to that number, but I do think we'd have hit it before the war's end.

 

I also feel unqualified (I feel we both are) to really pass judgment since being in the position to drop such a weapon or have to endure such a weapon is beyond my ability to relate. I still side with giving the benefit of the doubt to those that did drop the bombs, because they were fighting a bitter global war without very much information. It's an absolute travesty what occurred, and it happened in the middle of a travesty. The moral conflicts between protecting your allies and protecting your enemy from excessive force is one we really don't understand better today than when the events happened.

It was an absolutely horrible thing to do, but I don't think it can be isolated from the context of the conflict. It would be nice if we could isolate nuclear weapons as the source of the tragedy - but they are not - the real tragedy is a global war that cost 50-70 million lives and culminated in two nuclear detonations.

[iNow]

This is not representative of my own views... I'm just throwing this into the ring...

 

What about all of the lives saved by the future wars the dropping of the bomb prevented? My point is, when we dropped the bomb, people who otherwise might have attacked us or our allies probably rethought their plans and decided not to... They saw the hearty ass-kicking we were both willing and able to deliver, and decided to leave us all alone for a bit.

 

Had we not dropped the bomb, others could have likely made decisions to start more and new conflicts (seeing us perhaps as a weaker opponent and more able to be defeated), which would have ultimately led to a much greater loss of lives in total.

 

Just a thought for consideration.

[padren]

Please note that I don't fault them for it. It was a tough decision either way, and I don't downplay that.

 

I'm just saying, in 20/20 hindsight, having visited the Hiroshima Peace Park and seen the devastation the bombs wrought firsthand, I would not have dropped the bombs. That is all.

 

I think we are in agreement on that - I can't say whether in retrospect it was called for, I just don't feel qualified. Part of the problem is we are talking about tragedies stacked on tragedies of such scale that it is very hard to conceptualize - it's probably easier to grasp lotto odds. I would say that in order to prevent such choices in the future, we have to really struggle to prevent such conflict escalations in which such choices come up. To actually have to consider the choice so much would have already gone so badly that there is no excuse in letting it get there in the first place.

[bascule]

My point is, when we dropped the bomb, people who otherwise might have attacked us or our allies probably rethought their plans and decided not to...

 

Except shortly thereafter, we developed fusion bombs which made Hiroshima look like a splash compared to a tidal wave

[The Bear's Key]

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.

The variables don't fit.

 

A. You have a people who'll never surrender.

B. Thus your new plan is for them to surrender.

 

I still side with giving the benefit of the doubt to those that did drop the bombs

Let's make some calculations.

 

The benefit of doubt towards one side

+

blind distust towards another

=

strength for propaganda (...not implying that you have blind distrust)

 

One guess...what's the equation like at the time of fighting against Japan?

 

While I can more easily give the benefit of doubt to WW2 leaders, I can't to their advisors. To most I can, just not all of them. The kind of people lying about WMD (thus helping launch a war that killed great numbers of people) didn't begin existing in government only after Y2K.

 

 

because they were fighting a bitter global war without very much information.

And the public had much less information.

 

 

The moral conflicts between protecting your allies and protecting your enemy from excessive force is one we really don't understand better today than when the events happened.

I would say that in order to prevent such choices in the future, we have to really struggle to prevent such conflict escalations in which such choices come up.

You might ask how we're ever going to prevent anything with decisions made behind closed doors. After the fact, we'll could once again give the benefit of doubt...until the next time....and the next.

 

 

What about all of the lives saved by the future wars the dropping of the bomb prevented? My point is, when we dropped the bomb, people who otherwise might have attacked us or our allies probably rethought their plans and decided not to...

How often did such attacks occur before the nukings though? And might not such a deterrence vs attack be a great motivator for using the nukes, in order that foreign policies can go unchallenged (aka on a field day)?

[SH3RL0CK]

The variables don't fit.

 

A. You have a people who'll never surrender.

B. Thus your new plan is for them to surrender.

 

 

You are forgeting a few other options.

 

C. If they don't surrender, keep killing them until they do. Or until there aren't any left. A failing plan B fits well with this as a nuke is much more powerful than conventional weapons. However, keep in mind there is always:

D. Stop fighting. Let them have whatever they want. I'm sure the Chinese citizens of Nainking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking) have a few thoughts on this. Truely WWII was brutal.

 

As has previously been stated, every conceivable option results in an extremely brutal outcome. As such, I agree with Padren's view - why not try the new technology? In light of how little they understood, at least it held the potential for fewer deaths. In this case it appears to me to have actually worked as I find his estimates for the alternatives realistic.

[The Bear's Key]

You are forgeting a few other options.

 

C. If they don't surrender, keep killing them until they do. Or until there aren't any left. A failing plan B fits well with this as a nuke is much more powerful than conventional weapons. However, keep in mind there is always:

D. Stop fighting. Let them have whatever they want.

Or keep in mind there's still E-Z. And AA-ZZ; AAA-ZZZ; AAAA-ZZZZ; etc. I didn't forget options, just highlighted the two given and the contradiction in them.

 

Might it be you're concentrating too much on violence....and so browsing a thin avenue of possibility for solutions?

 

What if the task forces on deciding how to end the war, had instead collected all the tremendous potential energy -- from all the meetings, simulations, conferences, group brainstorms, organizing, preparing equipment, testing for unforeseeable circumstances, mobilizing units, billions of $$, whatever -- and put their all into a nearly 100% peaceful, non-violent way to end the conflict in a manner acceptable to both sides and clever enough to work. Laughable huh? Yes, it seems of course.

 

Maybe the leaders we've elected until now are inadequate for the job of crafting peaceful but firm, tactful yet expertly quick and potent resolutions without brutal violence and/or collateral killings. The exact opposite might be all they're really familiar with, learned since a young age (..or freshman in Congress).

 

Their mentality perhaps stuck in an old world of violent paths.

[bascule]

why not try the new technology? In light of how little they understood, at least it held the potential for fewer deaths. In this case it appears to me to have actually worked as I find his estimates for the alternatives realistic.

 

Can you provide some estimates of the alternatives? That would be helpful in evaluating them.

[SH3RL0CK]

Can you provide some estimates of the alternatives? That would be helpful in evaluating them.

 

I think Padren did a good job of this in regards to continuing the war, see his previous post

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.

 

Now my point regarding Nanking is to demonstrate my belief that letting the Japanese have what they want (option D) - which they actually had in regards to Nanking, also resulted in more deaths than the atomic bomb droppings. This is my estimate for Option D, Bascule.

 

This happened before the US and Japanese were at war. And Japanese war crimes weren't limited to just the Chinese in Nanking. Isn't it likely that had the Japanese invaded other Chinse cities, and perhaps Australian and American cities, similar atrocities would have been committed? If we had not fought at all, might there have been a "rape of Los Angeles" at some point? I think so.

 

I really do not see the possibility that TBK states

What if the task forces on deciding how to end the war, had instead collected all the tremendous potential energy -- from all the meetings, simulations, conferences, group brainstorms, organizing, preparing equipment, testing for unforeseeable circumstances, mobilizing units, billions of $$, whatever -- and put their all into a nearly 100% peaceful, non-violent way to end the conflict in a manner acceptable to both sides and clever enough to work. Laughable huh? Yes, it seems of course.

as being realistic. No, I'm not laughing at his suggestion. I simply think that this level of effort would have been fruitless in stopping the Japanese invasion of China (and WWII in the Pacific). Edited November 5, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[A Tripolation]

Maybe the leaders we've elected until now are inadequate for the job of crafting peaceful but firm, tactful yet expertly quick and potent resolutions without brutal violence and/or collateral killings. The exact opposite might be all they're really familiar with, learned since a young age (..or freshman in Congress).

 

Their mentality perhaps stuck in an old world of violent paths.

 

Please tell me how violence understands anything except the violence used against it. Diplomacy did not work very well then.

 

I can't think of anything that would've allowed a non-violent end to World War II. Now I'm not implying that that means there isn't one, I'm just saying I sure as heck can't figure it out.

Edited November 5, 2009 by A Tripolation

[Syntho-sis]

Please tell me how violence understands anything except the violence used against it. Diplomacy did not work very well then.

 

I can't think of anything that would've allowed a non-violent end to World War II. Now I'm not implying that that means there isn't one, I'm just saying I sure as heck can't figure it out.

 

If the nations were operating from a rational standpoint (The Axis weren't), then perhaps diplomacy could have achieved everyone's goals. Compromise has ended many wars.

[A Tripolation]

If the nations were operating from a rational standpoint (The Axis weren't), then perhaps diplomacy could have achieved everyone's goals. Compromise has ended many wars.

 

This I realize. But like you stated, the Axis wasn't. Therefore, that option is gone.

[DJBruce]

Personally I agree with the decision to drop the atomic bomb. In war their are bound to be casualties both civilian and military. I view Truman's decision to be between authorizing the use of a new weapon which although highly destructive had the possibility of ending the war and saving American lives or continuing the war and having Americans die. I feel that as the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces Truman had the duty to protect his soldiers. So if the Atomic bomb had even the slightest chance of saving an American life it was Truman's duty to do it.

 

Also I am not sure if this was mentioned, but on July 26, 1945 the allied forces issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan. In this declaration the allies called for Japan to end the war or, "The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. " Interestingly, the Potsdam declaration was given ten days after the explosion of the first nuclear weapon. So maybe the allies gave Japan a warning.

[padren]

I feel that as the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces Truman had the duty to protect his soldiers. So if the Atomic bomb had even the slightest chance of saving an American life it was Truman's duty to do it.

 

Well, that's the sort of mentality that leads to war crime tribunals. I am certain you don't mean to carry it that far and there was nothing established that a nuclear weapon would constitute as such - but the blanket statement as you phrased it could be taken to extremes. Of course, it's still very stick of a topic even to this day.

[JohnB]

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

 

The firebombing of Dresden' date=' Tokyo, etc was morally reprehensible.[/quote']

Sorry mate, the question wasn't meant that way.

 

Morally I can't see the difference between nukes and firebombing. From your comment I inferred that you did and wanted to know why. I misunderstood and our stances are much alike in this.

 

Be that as it may, the options for ending the war were few and all had a cost in lives.

 

Protracted conventional bombing would have resulted in far greater civillian losses.

 

(BTW, I no longer believe the estimates for civ casualties in fire raids. Japanese cities didn't have the systems of air raid shelters that European cities did. Approx 1.5 million people lived in the area of Tokyo destroyed in the raid of May 26, 1945. So without air raid shelters, rediculously inadequate fire fighting equipment and 15.8 square miles of city on fire in a night raid 14 out of 15 civillians survived? I call bullsh*t on that.

 

I have come to believe that the civillian casualties were deliberately understated by both the Japanese and Allied govs. The numbers just don't add up.)

 

The continued isolation and starvation of the main Japanese islands would also have resulted in great civillian casualties, as well as the ever growing civillian toll in the occupied areas.

 

As for invasion, millions dead. Easily. There were 28 million people in the civillian defence militia.

 

This summary shows conclusively that the use of the bomb directly led to the Emperor wanting an immediate end to the war.

 

Bottom line. Dropping the bomb was the fastest way to end the war and therefore minimise casualties on both sides.

 

Was it a "good" option? No.

Was it the "best option in a range of really bad options"? Probably yes.

 

It's all well and good to say the bomb shouldn't have been used, but I've yet to see any alternative way to end the war that was based on facts and not good feelings and supposition.

[gre]

The Japanese had a pretty relentless mind-set at the time and something huge was required to intimidate them (like a nuke). The nuke targets probably weren't ideal, though, but I doubt the nukes were a political move or anything shady like that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What would have happen if the US had not dropped the bomb and did not invade the main Japanese islands? There wasn't much left of the Japanese fleet to reach out and attack the Allies.

[padren]

What would have happen if the US had not dropped the bomb and did not invade the main Japanese islands? There wasn't much left of the Japanese fleet to reach out and attack the Allies.

 

They would need to be isolated, such as a trade embargo/blockade as long as the nation did not surrender. They were an industrialized nation and depended on imports at that point, so the cost would have been catastrophic to the civilian populations.

 

Such a situation could have lasted for a great many years, and turned Japan into what North Korea is today.

[SH3RL0CK]

What would have happen if the US had not dropped the bomb and did not invade the main Japanese islands? There wasn't much left of the Japanese fleet to reach out and attack the Allies.

 

There would also remain the question of whether or not to fight the Japanese in the vast amounts of territory they still controlled. The best way to avoid fighting there to liberate these areas was for a Japanese surrender.