The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

[conon394]

If anything the Japanese people got off very easy for the crimes their government committed. The harshest unjustified attack on those civilians was by their own military "government." Compare Japan's suffering with one of the places occupied by the Japanese, and it was justified and even benevolent, unlike the suffering the civilians went through under Japanese heel.

It helped that China was 'lost' to the communists thus the US could ignore a rather large chunk of Japanese war time activities.

[brandbll]

Good quotes but quotes that don't necessarily address my point. All this talk about not having to use the atomic bombs but nothing about how the regular air raids on Japan leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki had already devastated the country, nor the fact that air raids continued after both atomic bombings. The cities chosen as targets for the atomic bombs were chosen specifically because they were yet to be bombed. That means if the atomic bombs weren't used (or weren't invented), the cities would have been firebombed anyway and most likely would have been relatively just as deadly as the use of the atomic bombs.

So, again this issue to me is about the fear of the power of atomic bombs, not about moral or military justification. If the US did not drop the atomic bombs, Japan would have been bombed anyway just as it had been for years and still resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and partial destruction of entire cities. In this case all quotes you have provided and your arguments do not address this issue and therefore your arguments are emotion-based rather than the historical reality of the time.

It's my belief that if the atomic bombs weren't dropped this thread would be titled, "The Firebombings of Japanese Cities - Justified?" because if nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't necessary then neither were the horrific firebombings of Japanese cities, especially in the months leading up to nukes. If you're against the excessive force the United States used with the atomic bombs then you should be against the entire bombing campaign in both Japan as well as those used in Europe where bombing civilian targets was not uncommon and even the purpose. So far, not in any debate about this topic, the justification of the atomic bombs, has anyone in the " not justified" camp agreed with that argument and in my mind that makes them hypocrites.

This has been stated repeatedly in all the threads pertaining to this and the "not justified" camp never respond to it. Look at this nightmare moon character. They just dodged it with a simple "radioactive fallout is the difference" when in fact radio active fallout is never discussed.

This little section from James Bradley's Flyboys sums it up:

Few people now reflect that samurai swords killed more people in WWII than atomic bombs. WWII Paul Fussell wrote, "The degree to which Americans register shock and extraordinary shame about the Hiroshima bomb correlates closely with the lack of information about the Pacific War.

[Lord Rahl]

I have adressed that argument before: You forget thinks like "Radioactive Fallout". That makes a big difference.

I haven't forgot it. I even mentioned it before, though I did not expand on it.

Pretty much all of what MacArthur said about the atomic bomb, sans radiation, could be said about the whole strategic bombing campaign of Japan.

Radiation does add another negative effect to the atomic bombs. However, does this one difference make the atomic bombings markedly worse than the firebombings?

Nevermind that my solution could be done without any bombing of this two cities, but you, too, seemingly cannot be bothered to read my posts.

That doesn't make any sense. As I've said before, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were going to be bombed anyway (by conventional means) and no doubt the destruction and death toll would have been comparable. I really don't like repeating myself, but if you have a problem with the atomic bombings then you should have a problem with the whole strategic bombing campaign of Japan, especially in the months leading up to the end of the war. Perhaps you cannot be bothered to read my posts either.

[brandbll]

Radiation does add another negative effect to the atomic bombs. However, does this one difference make the atomic bombings markedly worse than the firebombings?

Of we are talking nuclear fallout like he said the answer to that is simply, no. Residual radiation was negligible in that it broke down exponentially by the day. After a week residual radiation was a millionth of what it was immediately after the bomb. Actual fallout had little to do with casualties.

Now the radiation exposure from the actual blast, which is not fallout, had to do with 7-15% of the total casualties from both atomic bombs. We're talking things like radiation sickness which basically destroys your immune system. Sort of like an instant OD of chemo therapy. Although, i would guess a lot of deaths were due to the fact that medical assistance was almost completely non-existent after the bombings.

[Condottiere 40K]

Page 497
This special committee, known as the Interim Committee, played a vital role in the decision to use the bomb. Secretary Stimson was chairman, and George L. Harrison, President of the New York Life Insurance Company and special consultant in the Secretary's office, took the chair when he was absent. James F. Byrnes, who held no official position at the time, was President Truman's personal representative. Other members were Ralph A. Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy, William L. Clayton, Assistant Secretary of State, and Drs. Vannevar Bush, Karl T. Compton, and James B. Conant. Generals Marshall and Groves attended at least one and possibly more of the meetings of the committee. [18]
The work of the Interim Committee, in Stimson's words, "ranged over the whole field of atomic energy, in its political, military, and scientific aspects." [19] During the first meeting the scientific members reviewed for their colleagues the development of the Manhattan Project and described vividly the destructive power of the atomic bomb. They made it clear also that there was no known defense against this kind of attack. Another day was spent with the engineers and industrialists who had designed and built the huge plants at Oak Ridge and Hanford. Of particular concern to the committee was the question of how long it would take another country, particularly the Soviet Union, to produce an atomic bomb. "Much of the discussion," recalled Dr. Oppenheimer who attended the meeting of 1 June as a member of a scientific panel, "revolved around the question raised by Secretary Stimson as to whether there was any hope at all of using this development to get less barbarous relations with the Russians." [20]
The work of the Interim Committee was completed 1 June 1945, [21] when it submitted its report to the President, recommending unanimously that:
1. The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.
2. It should be used against a military target surrounded by other buildings.
3. It should be used without prior warning of the nature of the weapon. (One member, Ralph A. Bard, later dissented from this portion of the committee's recommendation.)

[18] Stimson, "The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb," Harper's, p. 100; Byrnes, Speaking Frankly, p. 259; Oppenheimer Hearings, p. 34; Smith, "Behind the Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb: Chicago 1944-45," Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, pp. 296-97. [19] Stimson, "The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb," Harper's, p. 100. [20] Oppenheimer Hearings, pp. 34, 257, testimony of Drs. Oppenheimer and Compton; Byrnes, Speaking Frankly, pp. 260-61; Stimson, "The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb," Harper's, pp. 100-101. [21] Stimson "The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb," Harper's, p. 101; Truman, Year of Decisions, p. 419. Byrnes mistakenly states that the Interim Committee made its recommendations on 1 July. Byrnes, Speaking Frankly. Page 498
"The conclusions of the Committee," wrote Stimson, "were similar to my own, although I reached mine independently. I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military adviser s, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, than it would cost." [22]
Among the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were many who did not agree. To them, the "wave of horror and repulsion" that might follow the sudden use of an atomic bomb would more than outweigh its military advantages. "It may be very difficult," they declared, "to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a new weapon, as indiscriminate as the rocket bomb and a thousand times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having such weapons abolished by international agreement." [23] The procedure these scientists recommended was, first, to demonstrate the new weapon "before the eyes of representatives of all the United Nations on the desert or a barren island," and then to issue "a preliminary ultimatum" to Japan. If this ultimatum was rejected, and "if sanction of the United Nations (and of public opinion at home) were obtained," then and only then, said the scientists, should the United States consider using the bomb. "This may sound fantastic," they said, "but in nuclear weapons we have something entirely new in order of magnitude of destructive power, and if we want to capitalize fully on the advantage their possession gives us, we must use new and imaginative methods." [24]
These views, which were forwarded to the Secretary of War on 11 June 1945, were strongly supported by sixty-four of the scientists in the Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory in a petition sent directly to the President. At about the same time, at the request of Dr. Arthur H. Compton, a poll was taken of the views of more than a hundred and fifty scientists at the Chicago Laboratory. Five alternatives ranging from all-out use of the bomb to "keeping the existence of the bomb a secret" were presented. Of those polled, about two thirds voted for

[22] Stimson, "The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb," Harper's, p. 101. The same idea is expressed by Winston S. Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy (Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1953), p. 638-39. [23] "Report of the Committee on Social and Political Implications," signed by Professor James Franck of the University of Chicago and submitted to the Secretary of War, 11 June 1945, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 1, No. 10 (May 1, 1946), p. 3; Smith, "Behind the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Chicago 1944-45," Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, pp. 299-302. [24] Ibid, pp. 3-4.

[Ludicus]

conon394

Ike's memory was just getting foggy, realistically he was make stuff up...

In other words, Eisenhower lied in his memoirs. Why? it doesnt make sense; it seems to me that Eisenhower did not have Alzheimer's disease. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Eisenhower clearly expressed his opinion in 1963:"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary".

Nor, before Hiroshima, did any other top military leader ever raise a political or military objection to the use of the A-bomb on Japanese cites or argue explicitly that it would be unnecessary.”

Once again, it's irrelevant,and misses the point: they clearly expressed moral/military objections(unnecessary and immoral) after the war.The bombings were condemned as barbaric and/or unnecessary by high American military officers, includign MacArthur, Eisenhower and Leahy.

Lord Rahl

you have a problem with the atomic bombings then you should have a problem with the whole strategic bombing campaign of Japan,

In fact, LeMay once said that he wanted Tokyo "burned down—wiped right off the map" to "shorten the war." Mass destruction, the targeting for destruction of entire cities with conventional weapons or atomic weapons- ("merely another weapon in the arsenal", Truman) was the centerpiece of US warfare. Initial Meeting ofTarget Comittee,
" It should be remembered that in our selection of any target, the 20th Air Force is operating primarily to laying waste all the main Japanese cities...the 20th Air Force is systematically bombing out the following cities with the prime purpose in mind of not leaving one stone lying on another:Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka, Kyoto,Kobe, Yawata & Nagasaki"

--
Lord Rahl

Radiation does add another negative effect to the atomic bombs. However, does this one difference make the atomic bombings markedly worse than the firebombings?

Obviously.If you are not able to understand the difference...unlike conventional weapons, the damage caused by nuclear weapons is not limited either in space or in time.

---

As I've said before, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were going to be bombed anyway

Nagasaki. Hiroshima never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets. The same applies to Nagasaki. Talking about Hiroshima, Truman said,
"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war"
An absurd reasoning. Again,an absurd reasoning, August 9, 1945, Truman stated,
"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians"
Hiroshima was a city,300,000 inhabitants, which contained military elements; the harbor was mined and the Navy and Air Force of the US were in control of the waters around Japan. He also stated, on other occasions, that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center.
However, according to the US Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage".
In fact, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they had spent the war basically unscathed, and that´s all.

Initial Meeting of Target Commitee, first priority,

"It was suggested that the following criteria be given as a basis for preparation of the data in response to the above request:

a. Consideration is to be given to large urban areas of not less than 3 miles in diameter existing in the larger populated areas.

Target Committee, Los Alamos,1945,

In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed

However, Kyoto was not bombed because it was the former capitol of Japan...

[Vanoi]

conon394

In other words, Eisenhower lied in his memoirs. Why? it doesnt make sense; it seems to me that Eisenhower did not have Alzheimer's disease. Anyway, it's irrelevant. Eisenhower clearly expressed his opinion in 1963:"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary".

I have a good question. Why does his opinion even matter? He was an Allied commander in Europe, not the Pacific. He did not know anything about the Pacific campaign. He did not know the Japanese at all. So his opinion really means jack in the Pacific Theatre.

[brandbll]

I have a good question. Why does his opinion even matter? He was an Allied commander in Europe, not the Pacific. He did not know anything about the Pacific campaign. He did not know the Japanese at all. So his opinion really means jack in the Pacific Theatre.

I have a great respect for Ike. Ike was really focused during part his presidency, and after, on trying to alert the public of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Nuclear weapons was a big part of that. So it's not really that absurd for him to say something like that, whether he acually agrees with it or not. But this is what happens when people cut and paste a zillion quotes with no contextual backing given for them.

Obviously.If you are not able to understand the difference...unlike conventional weapons, the damage caused by nuclear weapons is not limited either in space or in time.

This is why you can't debate with these people. Not limited in space or time, wtf does that even mean?

Btw, Hiroshima today:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Lord Rahl]

conon394

Once again, it's irrelevant,and misses the point: they clearly expressed moral/military objections(unnecessary and immoral) after the war.The bombings were condemned as barbaric and/or unnecessary by high American military officers, including MacArthur, Eisenhower and Leahy.

But it was the opinion of others to the contrary. What you've proven is that there was a division of opinions among military commanders about the use of the bomb. That is nothing new. Everyone knows that.

Lord Rahl

In fact, LeMay once said that he wanted Tokyo "burned down—wiped right off the map" to "shorten the war." Mass destruction, the targeting for destruction of entire cities with conventional weapons or atomic weapons- ("merely another weapon in the arsenal", Truman) was the centerpiece of US warfare. Initial Meeting ofTarget Comittee,
" It should be remembered that in our selection of any target, the 20th Air Force is operating primarily to laying waste all the main Japanese cities...the 20th Air Force is systematically bombing out the following cities with the prime purpose in mind of not leaving one stone lying on another:Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka, Kyoto,Kobe, Yawata & Nagasaki"

Those quotes further support my arguments. I'm...not sure what your point is if you're disagreeing with me.

Lord Rahl

Obviously.If you are not able to understand the difference...

You're wrong. Conventional weapons have their own negative side effects to health. You don't think some victims who survived the firebombings suffered terrible burns? No doubt the atomic bombs caused similar injuries. Styrene is a byproduct of the napalm burning and is a toxic carcinogen. There is no doubt that there were radiation victims from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, if you could make some reasonable argument why the added radiation side effect from the atomic bombs is markedly worse than conventional bombing side effects, then I'd appreciate it. From what I've read, radiation deaths are estimated from 10%-20% of the atomic bombs' victims...though I'm not sure if that includes long term deaths attributed to radiation. This is according the United States Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946.

Nagasaki. Hiroshima never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets. The same applies to Nagasaki.

Talking about Hiroshima, Truman said,
"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war"
An absurd reasoning.

I wouldn't say that's absurd. Pearl Harbor was the beginning of the war. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the end. I don't think Truman is saying in that quote that the atomic bombings were justified because of Pearl Harbor and POW murders specifically.

Again,an absurd reasoning, August 9, 1945, Truman stated,
"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians"
Hiroshima was a city,300,000 inhabitants, which contained military elements; the harbor was mined and the Navy and Air Force of the US were in control of the waters around Japan. He also stated, on other occasions, that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center.
However, according to the US Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage".
In fact, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they had spent the war basically unscathed, and that´s all.

Your last sentence is what I've already mentioned. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen in part because they were not yet bombed.

Initial Meeting of Target Commitee, first priority,


Target Committee, Los Alamos,1945,

However, Kyoto was not bombed because it was the former capitol of Japan...

Yes, I know. What is your point?

[conon394]

But it was the opinion of others to the contrary. What you've proven is that there was a division of opinions among military commanders about the use of the bomb. That is nothing new. Everyone knows that.

No Rahl he has not proved that since there is no evidence that Ike was either informed or or aware of the Atomic decision and no evidence that he objected at the time.

[Lord Rahl]

I meant generally since he keeps posting quotes from those who (supposedly) objected to it. My point is that he's proved there were those who didn't approve of the atomic bomb. Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that (beyond refuting specific quotes by specific persons).

[adamsleath]

havent read the thread just the title.

but it was to minimise u.s. casualties . japanese had proven that they would fight basically to the death for every inch of soil. it ended the war against japan immediately. not good for the dead japanese (or the americans who died taking pacific islands), but thats war. well actually the end of world war really. as we all know

[conon394]

I meant generally since he keeps posting quotes from those who (supposedly) objected to it. My point is that he's proved there were those who didn't approve of the atomic bomb. Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that (beyond refuting specific quotes by specific persons).

Although many/most of his quotes - you know the ones that are all over the net are lifted from Alperovitz and have long since been proven to have been taken out of context, made up by Alperovitz by omitting text without '...''s, are the comments who can have had no ideal of the situation in 1945 and were in no position to make a choice or influence policy, or are comments that have no evidence they were ever made in 1945 or are in fact contradicted by the evidence from the time.

[Ludicus]

he keeps posting quotes from those who (supposedly) objected to it

It´s not "supposedly". "He" keeps posting quotes from those who objected to it.

My point is that he's proved there were those who didn't approve of the atomic bomb.

Literally every top U.S. military leader subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.
Those who believed that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was morally repugnant and/or militarily unnecessary include Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President,in his memoirs), Brigadier General Carter Clarke, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral William F. Halsey,Commander U.S. Third Fleet, the commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry Arnold, Major General Curtis E. LeMay, General C. Spaatz, commander of Strategic Air Forces,Air Force General Claire Chennault,Brigadier General Bonner Fellers and others.

there is no evidence that Ike was either informed or or aware of the Atomic decision

He wrote (1963) that he was informed by the Secretary of War that the atomic bomb was going to be used. (you are free to call him a liar)

----

and no evidence that he objected at the time.

An irrelevant comment...even if true. You just cant deny that in 1963 he disapproved the use of the bomb.He wrote in 1963 that bomb was, "I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"

---

I don't think Truman is saying in that quote that the atomic bombings were justified because of Pearl Harbor..."

Truman is saying that the bombs were also justified because of Pearl Harbor, he was quite explicit..."Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war.."
According to his (absurd...) reasoning,there is a correlation between Pearl Harbor and the use of the bomb.

-----------
The Allied forces stopped Hitler and Tojo, but the indiscriminate use of conventional and non conventional weapons of mass destruction against inoccent civilians is morally repugnant. The resort to terror in any circumstances is unjustifiable. (in fact, how can someone say ,"There are no civilians in Japan"?)

NO QUARTER GIVEN: THE CHANGE IN STRATEGIC BOMBING APPLICATION IN THE PACIFIC THEATER DURING WORLD WAR II
A thesis presented to the faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History
by JOHN M. CURATOLA, Major, USMC, B.A., University of Nebraska, 1987 M.A., George Mason University, 2001

"...Though it was written before World War II and was classified during the conflict, in 1946 anthropologist Ruth Benedict published an in-depth study of Japanese culture and social organization. In the opening remarks of her work she stated:
"The Japanese were the most alien enemy the United States had ever fought in an all-out struggle. In no other war with a major foe had it been necessary to take into account such exceedingly different habits of acting and thinking. . . . Conventions of war which Western nations had come to accept as facts of human nature obviously did not exist for the Japanese".

The cultural unfamiliarity illustrated by Benedict between the United States and the Japanese facilitated the change in bombing practices. The perception that the Japanese were less than human and worthy of annihilation was a prevailing theme in America’s World War II popular culture.
All of the official and popular anti-Japanese rhetoric was further fuel by the common depiction of the Japanese as less than human or subhuman.
Racial stereotypes and animosities were key psychological tenets to the American war effort as the Japanese were normally depicted as monkeys, reptiles, insects, and vermin.
While these human variables were conventional, advances in science and technology now made it possible to employ exterminationist practices that were unconventional.
...At the simplest level, they (the animal depictions) dehumanized the Japanese and enlarged the chasm between “us” and “them” to the point where it was perceived to be virtually unbridgeable. . . . The enemy in Europe “were still people.” The Japanese were not, and in good part they were not because they were denied even the ordinary vocabularies of “being human".
...All of these factors created an environment that allowed for the transition to incendiary bombing and provided the USAAF carte blanche authority to conduct whatever practices it deemed necessary. This authority provided LeMay and the USAAF unprecedented license to destroy an enemy that was viewed as less than human and unworthy of existence in the civilized world.
Toward this end, racism, dehumanization, and hatred combined with technological advances became inextricably linked to cause the kind of widespread carnage experienced by the Japanese empire in the spring of 1945.
This marriage of technology and human nature made it possible for the first time to deliberately annihilate an entire race of people in a relatively short period of time. This same recipe for conflagration and disaster was developed further when nuclear and thermonuclear weapons made their appearance on the world stage.
While the world has since been spared nuclear holocaust, the specter of nuclear winters and worldwide conflagrations has never left the global psyche and still remains a part of the modern human condition. The foundations for such concerns can be found to a certain degree in the CBO (Combined Bomber Offensive) in Europe, but to a much greater degree in the Pacific"

Read the full paper,
Link

(Truman recognized,19 January 1953)
"The atomic bomb...is far worse than gas and biological warfare because it affects the civilian population and murders them by the wholesale"

[Caelius]

So you have some sort of grudge against me.

Grudge? Dude you barely even register on my list of concerns related to what's posted on this board.

That said, I do have an interest in correcting historical falsehoods, as i've done in numerous other threads on the A-Bomb droppings like this one.

Ok. Don´t know why, but if this is the reason you don´t read my posts, yet still claim to argue against them - Well ...

I didn't read your posts because (as I said) I didn't care to.

I read the thread title, skimmed the OP a bit, saw you were posting the same stuff that's been debunked again and again on this board, and posted a response.

Since when was it required that one needed to read your posts in full to do that?

Let me make myself clear on this matter:
Dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both valid strategic military targets BTW) was the best option and most Utilitarian thing left available to the United States at that time regarding Japan that could entice them to surrender on American terms and bring WWII to a close.

If they hadn't been dropped. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions of Japanese) on both sides would've died if Operation Downfall had been given the green light instead.

Quoting an American admiral here, or some Japanese diplomat there, just to score a few points of rhetorical leverage....really becomes irrelevant in the face of that solitary cold truth.

If you had bothered to read my post (which I don't think you did), it's made very painfully clear:

The invasion of Japan never became a reality because on August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Within days the war with Japan was at a close.

Had these bombs not been dropped and had the invasion been launched as scheduled, combat casualties in Japan would have been at a minimum of the tens of thousands. Every foot of Japanese soil would have been paid for by Japanese and American lives.

One can only guess at how many civilians would have committed suicide in their homes or in futile mass military attacks.

In retrospect, the 1 million American men who were to be the casualties of the invasion, were instead lucky enough to survive the war.

Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare.

Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation.

With American forces locked in combat in the south of Japan, little could have prevented the Soviet Union from marching into the northern half of the Japanese home islands. Japan today cold be divided much like Korea and Germany.

The world was spared the cost of Operation Downfall, however, because Japan formally surrendered to the United Nations September 2, 1945, and World War II was over.

The aircraft carriers, cruisers and transport ships scheduled to carry the invasion troops to Japan, ferried home American troops in a gigantic operation called Magic Carpet.

In the fall of 1945, in the aftermath of the war, few people concerned themselves with the invasion plans. Following the surrender, the classified documents, maps, diagrams and appendices for Operation Downfall were packed away in boxes and eventually stored at the National Archives. These plans that called for the invasion of Japan paint a vivid description of what might have been one of the most horrible campaigns in the history of man. The fact that the story of the invasion of Japan is locked up in the National Archives and is not told in our history books is something for which all Americans can be thankful.

All of the remaining Japanese cities would've been firebombed till nothing of modern or industrial Japan was left standing.

Their country would've been left in ash and ruins, and no American aid would've been given to help them rebuild into the powerhouse they are today.

Having two cities and a couple hundred thousand people die in order to save the lives of a million or more US invasion troops, the millions more Japanese lives that would've been ended or ruined had Fat Man and Little Boy NOT been dropped, as well as preserve Japan as a functioning nation and culture, and not the equivalent of a modern day Zimbabwe is..........a fair loss in my book.

Just as it was in Truman's estimation. Ultimately it was HIM (NOT Leahy, Nimitz, or whoever else you care to spend all day trying to quote out of context) that the "buck" stopped with. No one else mattered.

[Ludicus]

Just as it was in Truman's estimation. Ultimately it was HIM (NOT Leahy, Nimitz, or whoever else

Precisely.It was not a military measure. It was a political decision,a "diplomatic" measure calculated to intimidate the Soviet Union.

Let me make myself clear on this matter:
Dropping the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both valid strategic military targets BTW) was the best option and most Utilitarian thing left available to the United States at that time regarding Japan that could entice them to surrender on American terms and bring WWII to a close.

Let me make myself clear on this matter:no matter if you are wrong or right, please avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting.
--
General Groves, military director of the Manhattan project,
"There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge, any illusions on my part, but that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was carried out on that basis. I didn't go along with attitude of the whole country that Russia was our gallant ally. I always had suspicions and the project was conducted on that basis"

US Secretary of State Byrnes:
"...it wasn't necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war but our possession and demonstration of the bomb would make the Russians more manageable in Europe"

----

"Historians have attempted to support the argument for military necessity, including the popular theory of “Total War.” This theory stipulates that Japanese civilians should be treated the same as Japanese soldiers because of their participation in the Japanese militaryindustrial complex, including arms manufacturing, shipping, and maintenance.
Historians theorize that Truman dropped the bomb because he wanted to destroy the enemy’s power to make war, as well as their morale, no matter the toll. While this theory lends itself well to the Western Front, the concurrent war against Germany, it does not apply to the war against Japan.

Allied bombers had already carpetbombed the majority of Japan’s war factories and civilian towns, and had firebombed Tokyo multiple times. It is common knowledge that most of Truman’s military advisors recognized that Japan’s ability to produce armaments and equipment had effectively been eliminated by early 1945. Furthermore, the targets selected for the atomic attack were both of low strategic value: Hiroshima was a port city which housed a moderately sized military supply depot, and Nagasaki served as a small harbor for the Imperial Navy.

If Truman were operating under the premise of Total War, he would have selected a target of higher value. While the Total War theory may have been a part of Truman’s overall strategy in World War II, it does a poor job of explaining his motivation to launch the atomic bomb on Japan and does not support military necessity as a motivation. Truman’s advisors, and by extension Truman himself, were sold on the belief that the bomb could be used to intimidate Russia and ultimately help the United States forge a successful post-war foreign policy.
It is clear, after a careful analysis of numerical evidence and the words of both Truman and his advisors, that the underlying motivation behind the decision to drop the atomic bomb was to intimidate Russia, thereby ensuring a peaceful future for the planet maintained by the United States in its newfound role as the free world’s guardian. Truman launched the bomb not as a means of ending World War II, but in the hope of preventing a future war from beginning"

Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman’s Decision to Launch the Atomic Bomb: Matt Redmond
This paper was written for Nancy McPhaul’s Advanced Placement U.S. History class in the spring of 2009.
Link

[Lord Rahl]

Literally every top U.S. military leader subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

According to what criteria?

Those who believed that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was morally repugnant and/or militarily unnecessary include Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President,in his memoirs), Brigadier General Carter Clarke, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral William F. Halsey,Commander U.S. Third Fleet, the commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry Arnold, Major General Curtis E. LeMay, General C. Spaatz, commander of Strategic Air Forces,Air Force General Claire Chennault,Brigadier General Bonner Fellers and others.

I agree with them. Dropping the atomic bombs was immoral. The same goes with firebombing Japanese cities as well. You earlier posted a quote attributed to Curtis LeMay as said by Robert McNamara in the documentary The Fog of War where McNamara says the quote in commenting on the firebombing of Japanese cities,

Curtis LeMay’s statement sums up it best: “if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals"

To me that says LeMay knew what he was doing was immoral, not just the atomic bombs. You still have yet to respond directly what I've been repeating over and over again, that the entirety of US bombing of Japan should be considered equally as immoral to the atomic bombings.

Truman is saying that the bombs were also justified because of Pearl Harbor, he was quite explicit..."Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war.."
According to his (absurd...) reasoning,there is a correlation between Pearl Harbor and the use of the bomb.

Ah, then you should agree with me. He mentioned Pearl Harbor while commenting on the atomic bombings but nowhere claimed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You said yourself, correlation, not causation. There's a correlation between Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombings just as there is with the rest of the war, no doubt, e.g. the murder of US POWs, kamikaze attacks, the insanely brutal battles during the island hopping campaigns, etc. So, to me you're taking Truman's quote out of historical and reasonable context. You're saying he said things he didn't.

The Allied forces stopped Hitler and Tojo, but the indiscriminate use of conventional and non conventional weapons of mass destruction against inoccent civilians is morally repugnant. The resort to terror in any circumstances is unjustifiable. (in fact, how can someone say ,"There are no civilians in Japan"?)

Ever heard of Dresden? Read anything on Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris? Bombing civilians was not specific to the Pacific Theater.

NO QUARTER GIVEN: THE CHANGE IN STRATEGIC BOMBING APPLICATION IN THE PACIFIC THEATER DURING WORLD WAR II
A thesis presented to the faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History
by JOHN M. CURATOLA, Major, USMC, B.A., University of Nebraska, 1987 M.A., George Mason University, 2001

"...Though it was written before World War II and was classified during the conflict, in 1946 anthropologist Ruth Benedict published an in-depth study of Japanese culture and social organization. In the opening remarks of her work she stated:
"The Japanese were the most alien enemy the United States had ever fought in an all-out struggle. In no other war with a major foe had it been necessary to take into account such exceedingly different habits of acting and thinking. . . . Conventions of war which Western nations had come to accept as facts of human nature obviously did not exist for the Japanese".

The cultural unfamiliarity illustrated by Benedict between...

Yes, I know this. Your point?

(Truman recognized,19 January 1953)
"The atomic bomb...is far worse than gas and biological warfare because it affects the civilian population and murders them by the wholesale"

And?

[Ludicus]

According to what criteria?

Obviously, according to their own criteria: the bombs were not necessary to secure Japan's surrender; the use of the bombs was "barbaric" and immoral.

I agree with them. Dropping the atomic bombs was immoral. The same goes with firebombing Japanese cities as well

Exactly.

To me that says LeMay knew what he was doing was immoral, not just the atomic bombs

Exactly.

I've been repeating over and over again, that the entirety of US bombing of Japan should be considered equally as immoral to the atomic bombings.

Pres.Truman seems to disagree,
"The atomic bomb...is far worse than gas and biological warfare because it affects the civilian population and murders them by the wholesale" (1953)
But he was an opportunist par excellence, constantly changing his views, his ideas and principles to suit any occasion:"It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness" (1959)
He even said, "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way we let them kill as many as possible" (1941)

You said yourself, correlation, not causation.

Correlation may not imply causation, but it sure can help us insinuate it.
"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war"

Ever heard of Dresden? Read anything on Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris? Bombing civilians was not specific to the Pacific Theater.

And your point is?...I presume you haven't read my previous posts (and links) -post 214, Read the full paper,

"How a nation conducts war is often a reflection of the societal values it holds. America has long been a nation that prides itself on a sense of “fair play” and moral virtue. However, given America's military history, this pride may or may not be justified. Regardless of its validity, this professed allegiance to a sense of fair play and morality is a perception most Americans have about their nation and the way in which it prosecutes. Despite America's self-professed moral proclivity, area and fire bombing civilians eventually became the mode of operation for the American bombing campaign. The shift in American bombing applications originally began in the European theater of operations (ETO) and reached its culmination in the Pacific theater against the Japanese"

Yes, I know this. Your point?

Really? It seems that you are unable (or unwilling) to understand- what the author says:
CHAPTER 5- HUMAN NATURE
"Though it was written before World War II and was classified during the conflict, in 1946 anthropologist Ruth Benedict published an in-depth study of Japanese culture and social organization. In the opening remarks of her work she stated:" Conventions of war which Western nations had come to accept as facts of human nature obviously did not exist for the Japanese"
The cultural unfamiliarity between the United States and the Japanese facilitated the change in bombing practices. The perception that the Japanese were less than human and worthy of annihilation was a prevailing theme in America’s World War II popular culture"

[athanaric]

The cultural unfamiliarity between the United States and the Japanese facilitated the change in bombing practices. The perception that the Japanese were less than human and worthy of annihilation was a prevailing theme in America’s World War II popular culture"

Given this approach, how do they explain the American actions in the European theatre, which were much the same despite the cultural (and ethnic) proximity of mainstream American culture to German culture? British influence? Or outrage at the genocide and war crimes committed by the Germans (which I don't find particularly convincing since IIRC the American public wasn't that much aware of the Holcaust until after the war)?

[Ludicus]

Given this approach, how do they explain the American actions in the European theatre, which were much the same despite the cultural (and ethnic) proximity of mainstream American culture to German culture? British influence?

A pertinent question.
In Japan,racism was not the most important factor, but may have played a role in Truman’s decision and should not be dismissed outright.
In 1911, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. (Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess"
---
In Europe, (previous link, post 214)

"While conducting this bombing campaign, the USAAF professed an adherence to a doctrine that was uniquely American- -precision daylight bombing. This doctrine was based upon the premise that a sufficiently defended bomber, in daylight, can conduct a precision attack on an enemy's war-making production and industrial capabilities. This doctrine, which emerged from the U.S. Army's Air Corps Tactical School (ACTS) in the 1930s, envisioned that bombers would fight their way to the industrial and administrative centers of the enemy and destroy the means of making war, thereby avoiding a long and bloody campaign aimed at defeating the hostile army. While this doctrine was the initial premise for the American bombing effort, as the war progressed it became apparent that the USAAF had strayed from its professed doctrine of precision bombing.

...While Americans professed to be precise with their bombing efforts, eventually through enemy resistance, along with greater success of certain RAF raids, the USAAF came to alter its approach. This approach, while still conducted in daylight, eventually began to resemble that of its British Allies. While British influence itself did not cause the transition, it, like the desire to avoid Allied casualties and the ability to use mass as a weapon, all served to facilitate the transition to Douhetian warfare by the USAAF... ...The answers to these questions are not necessarily only military ones, but ones that speak to American moral, legal, and cultural values"