The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

[Vanoi]

Well, that´s my point of view. Even better, a diplomatic approach- ultimately, Japan was allowed to keep her Emperor. Today it seems fairly clear that the combination of the Soviet invasion and an altering of the unconditional surrender terms could have avoided the use of the bombs. For example, even Stimson recognized,

Its not that simple. Japan wanted to retain the Imperial system. Even the US changed the conditions to allow the Emperor to stay, he would become a figurehead, and the Imperial system abolished.

[Ludicus]

Its not that simple. Japan wanted to retain the Imperial system. Even the US changed the conditions to allow the Emperor to stay, he would become a figurehead, and the Imperial system abolished.

In the end the Emperor was allowed to remain, anyway.
Well, as I said before,
"The reasons for dropping the bomb were complex; the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima /Nagasaki remains among the most controversial controversial events in modern history"
It´s just my opinion - in fact no one can dictate truth to another.

[Turtler]

Well, that´s my point of view. Even better, a diplomatic approach- ultimately, Japan was allowed to keep her Emperor. Today it seems fairly clear that the combination of the Soviet invasion and an altering of the unconditional surrender terms could have avoided the use of the bombs. For example, even Stimson recognized,

Why in God's name would anyone in the world' benefit from a diplomatic approach outside of the people whose live smight've been spared int he days and months to follow? Yes, it would save lives in the short run, but in the long? The sheer fact that it would make Tojo etc. al. martyrs and the military revered should be enough of a condemnation of that approach. Any "victory" that leaves the Japanese militarists and the their major supporters intact is simply not that complete a victory. We learned this with the Germans in WWI.

The difference between what happened and what you're proposing was that the Emperor being allowed to keep his position was a unilateral move of generosity by the occupation authorities who (at least theoretically) could have chopped Hirohito's block off. As such, it was not viewed as a capitulation to the military and the die hards, as such it didn't give them any martyr credentials. Which ultimately made sure that they never, ever, ever managed to be a significant factor in Japanese affairs ever again.

"I believe Japan is susceptible to reason in such a crisis to a much grater extent than is indicated by our current press and other current comment. Japan is not a nation composed wholly of mad fanatics of an entirely different mentality from ours. On the contrary, she has within the past century shown herself to possess extremely intelligent people,......Her advance in all these respects during the short period of sixty or seventy hears has been one of t he most astounding feats of national progress in history -a leap from the isolated feudalism of centuries into the position of one of the six or seven great powers of the world. She has not only built up powerful armies and navies. She has maintained an honest and effective national finance and respected position in many of the sciences in which we pride ourselves"

Well, naturally. But see above. Stimson wasn't wrong to believe in the rationality of the Japanese under the right circumstances, but he was comprehensively wrong to underestimate the need to deny the militarists a moral or psychological victory. The great paradox is that in emphasizing- and not without *very* good reason- the rationality the Japanese were capable of, he was advocating measures that would play to the least rational parts of the Japanese government and in seeking peace immediately he was forgetting the lessons of WWI. It's easy to make adjustments to a surrender demand to compel a less bloody surrender; it's far harder to win a meaningful peace by delivering a blow that'll shatter an entrenched military-industrial complex.

Watch online,
The Bomb

"The hurried-up decision to use the bomb seems to stem from the fact that Truman had told Stalin at the Potsdam Conference that the U.S. now had the weapon. (Stone and Kuznick, watch the episode 3, or read the book - pgs. 162-65) So, just four days after the conclusion of Potsdam, the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Then, one day after the Russians invaded Manchuria, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki"

Thank you for the source, but the relevance of any of that?

It has just about zero relevance to defending the supposedly more humane methods of either blockading or negotiating a surrender, in which yous eem to be willfully ignoring the massive holes that have been ripped in both.

Turtler

The bomb. Good try.

Which is more than I can say to you, since I fail to see how that is in any way worth consideration. Smilies and short, irrelevant answers tend to be a hallmark of the vapid poster.

You see, even in cases of retaliation,
International Court, Professor Eric David,
"If the dispatch of a nuclear weapon causes a million deaths, retaliation with another nuclear weapon which will also cause a million deaths will perhaps protect the sovereignty of the state suffering the first strike, and will perhaps satisfy the victim’s desire for revenge, but it will not satisfy humanitarian law, which will have been breached not once but twice; and two wrongs do not make a right.

So you're trying to use ex-post-facto law? No, wait, not even that: Ex-Post-Facto use of a moral authority? The very first thing you should know when chucking in absolutely anything about law is that even if this were some sort of binding international part of humanitarian law (which you yourself admitted it IS NOT), legal decisions AFTER THE FACT are not lawfully applicable on events prior to the codifying of law. As a result, the verdict/statement/strongly worded letter is irrelevant for consideration on the atomic bombings of Japan. In addition, while I agree (*obviously*) that humanitarian law is breached every time a WMD of any kind is deployed, little things like pragmatism and self-defense mean that two wrongs not making a right falls under the "true but irrelevant" part, like it would have if he were commenting on the use of gas in WWI. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where judgements and moral conclusions by Professor This or the International Court that could dictate the laws of war and make it more humane. Unfortunately- and I mean very, *very* unfortunately- we do not.

Also, I feel obliged to say this: you're using sources like a clueless middle school student who knows you're supposed to provide outside sources but who has zero idea on how to actually use them effectively. Which is why you're spamming us with moral authorities (assumed or real) and Professor This and Professor That speaking on the destructiveness and brutality of the atomic bomb (admittedly a valid point, but one better raised through other means) and that alone, forgetting one of THE cardinal rules of soruce citing: Use Sources as Ethical and Moral appeals, But Do Not. Ever. Cite a Source that is (only) an Ethical or Moral appeal. THAT is the sort of stuff that's more compelling when you argue yourself, because citing all these not only *tells* the reader nothing but that A B and C agree with you (but not why we should care), while leaving your evidentiary flank weak and making it look like you search the web for and list your own opinions off of those of any academically credentialed person on the web who happens to agree with your point.

That's basically what we're seeing here. You're telling us A-Z agree with you and denounce the atomic bomb, but you're woefully short on evidence. Evidence about how the bomb was crueler than other possible choices, evidence that it was just done to tee off the Soviet Union, etc. etc. etc.

According to the International Court,
"Methods and means of warfare, which would preclude any distinction between civilian and military targets, or which would result in unnecessary suffering to combatants, are prohibited. In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons…the use of such weapons in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect to such requirements"

With that one word- "scarcely"- you and the International Court undermine the worth of that quote. Which is a damn shame, precisely because methods and tools such as that are so horrendous that a strong stance by those who can afford to do so (like NATO or Russia or what have you) would be worthwhile.

It's also undermined into complete irrelevance by a couple crucial facts: the first of which being that adherence to international law and said requirements has been declared limited by "tactical considerations" by (IIRC) all or just about all of the signatory nations. The second being that said prohibitions are only a guarentee of good conduct or themselves when they are enforced, which as you have noted before *the IC has been quite hard-pressed to do.* Which effectively makes this another moral authority statement without strong binding or a tie to the reality of warfare, especially total warfare.

I am not "trying".

Yes, you are "trying" and largely failing miserably.

The bombing of Tokyo, (just an example) was terror bombing, and mass murder in large scale.

Welcome to total war, where restraint isn't based upon the words of the International Court and where there are more pressing concerns than long-violated prohibitions in international law. There is a good reason why we should hope the developed world never lapses back into it.

However, by trying and failing to draw a direct correlation between something like Tokyo and something like Unit 731, you merely look like a fool.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said at the time that probably more persons lost their lives by fire in Tokyo in a six-hour period than at any time in the history of man.

Well goodie. A lovely and legitimately chilling little factoid, but one that still hardly justifies something like leaving a genocidal authoritarian/pseudo-totalitarian regime in power, or having it leave through *diplomacy.*

In attacks on 66 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the number of civilians killed by American bombs was "probably close to four hundred thousand," ( historian John Dower)

Finally, an improvement in how you cite sources. Though sadly not in relation to the atomic bomb and its' usefulness/lack of use itself. However, the sad fact is that it still utterly fails the test you are trying to put them to: use as justification for why the Japanese regime should not have been destroyed. Then again, this is hardly surprising, given the incredible nature that would be demanded of any such evidence.

check my posts. For example,
"Why do people understate the holocaust so much?-post 76 "
"As already said, there is a huge difference between a planned genocide and the brutality of WW2- in war, weapons can be morally or immorally employed. In fact, no allied politicians/generals were held accountable in the Nuremberg/Tokyo trials, for the atrocities created by bombing cities in Japan and Germany and the dropping of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that´s another story"

I have seen nothing of worth in your posts to be worth checking and *especially* not to go through your posting history to find; your immature emoticons do nothing to sway me from that assessment. You again seems to be categorically ignoring the fact that there is importance over *how* the brutality of a given conflict starts, and the fact that incidents like the Shanghai Blitz or the battering of Warsaw do not have the defense of military necessity or war conduct. Which again ties back to the fact that you apparently haven't understand the justifications given for the Tokyo, Nuremburg, etc. War Crimes tribunals and why they decided the way they did (and yes, they often took Allied conduct into account, as shown by the fact that Raeder somehow escaped the noose).

Which doesn't change the fact that this does not tie in to Orwell's point, and why he would condemn you. Since you can apparently spend so much effort digging up supposed and real moral authorities making ethos appeals that have no reasonable or logical effect on much of anything, perhaps you could spend the time to google "Pacifism and the War."

Absolutely true. Read above.

For once, we agree.

That said - a reality check, right-wing nationalist,

Oh Goodie. An Ad-Hominem that has zero evidentiary weight whatsoever. The fact that you can spew that in my direction after trying and futilely failing to defend the likes of Hitler, Goering, and THE EFFING JAPANESE EMPIRE is rather comical. Now please wait here, I'm sure the moderators will like to talk to you in a bit....

"Most great powers have considered themselves superior to their rivals and have believed that they were advancing some greater good when they imposed their preferences on others.
The British thought they were bearing the "white man's burden," while French colonialists invoked la mission civilisatrice to justify their empire. Portugal believed it was promoting a certain missão civilizadora. Even many of the officials of the former Soviet Union genuinely believed they were leading the world toward a socialist utopia despite the many cruelties that communist rule inflicted.
Of course, the United States has by far the better claim to virtue than Stalin or his successors, but Obama was right to remind us that all countries prize their own particular qualities.
So when Americans proclaim they are exceptional and indispensable, they are simply the latest nation to sing a familiar old song.

Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware of a little thing called nationalism and the biases it caused, and the fact that that is one of the few places where I have agreed with Obama, Ever. However, that does not change the fact that totalitarian or authoritarian systems of government- even the ones approved of by the given enlightened state we're talking about *CoughBananaRepublicscoughSaudiCough* produce corpses well in excess of democratic ones, and that totalitarian ones *mass*produce them. Which was the point I was getting at: not whether American exceptional-ism is more justified or right then Japanese pride, but the fact that ANY such belief is dangerous and monstrous when mingled with authoritarian or totalitarian government. *This* right-wing nationalist freely admits that It can Happen Here Too, and it would be just as monstrous in those circumstances as in any other.

I was referencing ideology and consensual government (or LACK thereof), not which flag one flies.

Among great powers, thinking you're special is the norm

, not the exception. The United States may not have been as brutal as the worst states in world history, but a dispassionate look at the historical record belies most claims about America's moral superiority.

Not when put up against one of said "worse states in world history" it does not. Which is again my point: it's a negative affirmation, not a positive one, because totalitarianism is poisonous and toxic no matter what soil it grows from. Case in point what's probably the first or second such government in world history, where Leopold II instituted and government an empire of murder and death from *Belgium* (albeit only in the Congo). No "Hateful Hun", no "Backwards Slav", no "Servile Oriental" here like so many racist fools like ranting and raving about; it doesn't matter how enlightened or rich your culture or nation's background is when it's in place, unless we're somehow supposed to discount Germany's history as a land of Dicher und Danker or Meijii Japan's long and generally decent record. If imposed on American terms, it would be just as horrifying, and even above the usual imperial brutality it and most other great powers have indulged in.

What you seem to be saying, though, is that there is *NO* moral superiority to be had, when compared between-say- the US or Belgium or whatever of the time versus Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the Soviet Union. THAT is what I attack, and that is too ludicrous to deserve credence.

SNIIIIP

No wonder Gen. Curtis LeMay, who directed the bombing campaign against Japan, told an aide, "If the U.S. lost the war, we would be prosecuted as war criminals."

Again, I feel obliged to point out that if the US 9and its' allies) had lost the war, the concept of war crimes would have lost all real meaning. Unless we are seriously supposed to trust the judgement of Nazi and early Showa jurisprudence.

Just wanted to get back in. Carry on now.

The United States dropped more than 6 million tons of bombs during the Indochina war, including tons of napalm and lethal defoliants like Agent Orange, and it is directly responsible for the deaths of many of the roughly 1 million civilians who died in that war.

The United States never conquered a vast overseas empire or caused millions to die through tyrannical blunders like China's Great Leap Forward or Stalin's forced collectivization. And given the vast power at its disposal for much of the past century, Washington could certainly have done much worse. But the record is clear: U.S. leaders have done what they thought they had to do when confronted by external dangers, and they paid scant attention to moral principles along the way. The idea that the United States is uniquely virtuous may be comforting to Americans; too bad it's not true.

Well, thank you for wasting everybody's time with that. I hope it made you feel better.

Up until the last part regarding the "scant attention to moral principles" I would've up-repped you for a post like this in another thread, but in this one it only serves to waste time and take up space. For one, it's worth noting that most US Presidents (like most leaders, in general) rarely pay "scant attention to moral principles along the way", they just have an incredibly-dare I say, horrendously?- myopic view of them. Of all of the US Presidents, I'd probably peg Nixon as the main one who could be said to have paid "scant attention", with honorable mention to LBJ. Most of the others tend to be deluded or otherwise working with double or even triple standards, like "normal" humans are wont to do on occasion. Ripping into THAT would be a lot more meatier, given how it would encompass how the US could position itself as the great bastion of liberty while on the other hand supporting people like-say- Chiang (one of the greatest and most unheraldered mass murderers in human history, with a body count that outstripped Militarist Japan).

As it is, this entire nice history summation does nothing because it is missing the point I was trying ot make. One that has nothing to do with MERICA OOH RAAAH and everything to do with ideology and accountability. Consider that all of the above were done under the leadership of freely elected governments, and that should be bad enough- like the track record of frankly all Imperial/Great powers- but when you mix it with the lovely nuerosises of totalitarianism, it would and could be infinitely worse. It doesn't matter about the nation's prior track record or where it is; it is invariably ugly and nightmarish.

That is why it is morally justified to bomb and bomb and fight and kill until the Japanese regime that helped spawn WWII and the forces that supported it directly (like the Kodama etc. al.) were no more. Not because of some eminent and inherent American moral superiority to Japan, but because as an authoritarian-slash-pseudototalitarian regime, it was unworthy of being spared and if spared would create more human suffering down the road. I would say the same about the US if it went through a similar transformation as that which happened between Meijii and Taisho Japan and early Showa Japan. That sort of system is too dangerous to be allowed to exist in *anyone's* backyard, with *anyone's* nation as a host. Including the US.

The United States talks a good game on human rights and international law, but it has refused to sign most human rights treaties, is not a party to the International Criminal Court, and has been all too willing to cozy up to dictators.

Welcome to mundane imperial politics 101. You're not going to get any dispute from me on that, or the fact that it isn't right.

Far from being a unique state whose behavior is radically different from that of other great powers, the United States has behaved like all the rest, pursuing its own self-interest first and foremost, seeking to improve its relative position over time, and devoting relatively little blood or treasure to purely idealistic pursuits. Yet, just like past great powers, it has convinced itself that it is different, and better, than everyone else"

Thank you for repeating that, because it absolutely had to be said. Again. And in complete ignorance of the main point I was making. If anything, that was one of my key points in support of the unconditional surrender of Japan and the destruction of the pre-existing government: because totalitarianism is so destructive and despicable. With one of the key reasons behind THAT being that- contrary to some nations having a unique state of grace- IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE, With uniquely and uniformly disastrous consequences; the US would be absolutely no different under such circumstances than Japan or Italy or Germany, or Romania, or what have you. Instead, you are arguing against a shadow, of what you *think* I am arguing for.

The Myth of American Exceptionalism

Link

I could spend a great deal of time ripping through that, but I will not. It's pointless to the overall issue we are discussing.

I bet you hate your (great) President; Barack Obama is against the use of nuclear weapons,at any time or under (almost) any circumstances,

Yes, I do. And I steadfastly deny that Obama is a great president in the least, and I could spend a number of hours discussing on why exactly he is not. However, that is completely irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. Totalitarianism Kills above all others, regardless of the flag.

From the news,
"Obama's views as supportive of keeping only enough of them to deter existing nuclear powers like Russia and China - not to deter attacks with other types of mass-casualty weapons like biological or chemical arms"

Which has zero relevance to what is going on in this thread. This is horrendously off-topic. Like it or not, this isn't primarily about the US or any of the other Allied powers. This is about the Japanese Empire, what it did, and why it had to be destroyed and modern Japan reborn anew.

This entire doctoral thesis you have is off topic, in large part PRECISELY BECAUSE it could apply equally to the US if it were to fall under similar conditions.

Again, good try. But in fact, most of the top American military officials stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

Most? Pretentious aren't we? It did indeed meet a great deal of opposition from the brass- both military and civilian (re: Stimson)- but hardly a clear majority.

I can name a few,
Eisenhower, Admiral William Leahy, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Admiral William F. Halsey, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy, UnderSecretary of the Navy Ralph Bird, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias, The commander in Chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, etc, etc.
For example, (just a brief example) read this letter In my opinion it was a monumental failure of statescraft on the part of the allies in not consumating this end

Which hardly even composed of "most" or even "a few of most." And in any event just amounts to a list of people you're using for supporting soundbytes, rather than giving unique evidence. Did your teacher ever tell you about the problems with using sources like that?

Curriculum vitae, please.

Too Lazy to be arsed by someone too intellectually lazy and short-sighted to appreciate it. Take that as you will, but I do not give a damn in the least. Especially since you have demonstrated here comprehensive illiteracy in terms of source choices for a subject at hand, in addition to basic unwillingness to do research (again, peddling conspiracy theory tripe that could be debunked by the Lowest Common Denominator is not good).

You're not my teacher; I'm doing this on my own free time and have no obligation to give you anything. So with that in mind, and given your dismal performance and arguments, why should I bother?

Without comments.

And pray tell what is that supposed to mean? That you finally got around to checking them on the most lazy and unreliable-yet-frequently-used site on the web and had a mea culpa on the subject of the bomb somehow being some byzantine plan to prevent Soviet expansion and thus undoing Potsdam which spent so much time hammering that out? If so, good. You're forgiven.

LE May was a war criminal. War crimes are not committed exclusively by people who lose wars.

Thank you, captain obvious. I agree. My point was specifically needling your uncritical acceptance of that, while woefully ignoring how-well- the Axis woefully ignored international law in just about every circumstance and so any war crimes tribunal under their government would by definition be a miscarriage of justice, even if Joseph Effing Stalin himself was on the dock.

Tokyo, Nuremburg, etc. al. were ugly, but they weren't outright abortions precisely because of that key factor.

"LEGALLY AT THE TIME" is not an excuse.

So now you're saying that basic law can go eff itself? It's not a moral exculpation at all, but it is a legal one, unfortunately.

In 1945, U.S. Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers described the U.S. air raids over Japanese cities as "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history." McNamara "I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals."

Thank you, but again that fails to go back to the relevance of how you somehow think we should have come to a diplomatic solution with the people responsible for *starting* the lovely trend of air raids over entire cities and who were responsible for things like the Rape of Nanking. All you've succeeded in doing is showing that the US was hardly saintly, which was not something I was trying to contest in the first place. How does it feel beating up them strawmen?

Telford Taylor, chief counsel of the American prosecution of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg recognized,
"The laws of war do not apply only to the suspected criminals of vanquished nations. There is no moral or legal basis for immunizing victorious nations from scrutiny. The laws of war are not a one-way street”

A more valid point than anything you have yet made. However, as Taylor's role in the IMT showed, he clearly did not believe that the use of such strategies should somehow allow the criminals or their government a free pass, which is more or less what you are advocating when you spill out gems like this:

Well, that´s my point of view. Even better, a diplomatic approach- ultimately, Japan was allowed to keep her Emperor. Today it seems fairly clear that the combination of the Soviet invasion and an altering of the unconditional surrender terms could have avoided the use of the bombs. For example, even Stimson recognized,

Still today, US requests a special privilege - immunity for its international engagements to which no other country would be entitled. USA refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court. (Philosophical topics- Global Inequalities, page 57)

The US has always been cagey about international entanglements in multi or transnational organizations going back to the League of Nations, in addition to concerns (OFTEN JUSTIFIED) about the efficiency of institutions like the IC. The fact that the latter might have partial cause from the former of course going over their heads, history repeats, etc. This is a real problem, and I will be the first to admit it. However, that also doesn't change the fundamental fact about this debate: Totalitarianism Kills, and the Japanese Empire had to be destroyed because of that fact. The fact that you have skirted around that is more important to this debate than any ranting or raving about American privledge or what have you.

In fact,
In the Nuremberg indictment, the American prosecutor Robert Jackson said,
"That we measure the accused today with the same scale that tomorrow history will measure us"

Rhetorical flourish, well in tune with Obama's vow to not use atomic weapons under all but a very few circumstances. It will not prevent them from being used when/if those very few circumstances arise, and it will not change the fact that the accused at Nuremburg were by *any* objective measure far heavier on the scale.

Food for thought

On some level, certainly. But again, not that much. Though it is far more worthwhile than reading Fat Hermann's attempts to cover his ass.

According to Oppenheimer ( in American Prometheus) Henry Stimson said to him ,
"that he thought it was appalling that there should be no protest over the air raids which we were conducting against Japan, which in the case of Tokyo led to such extraordinarily heavy loss of life. He didn’t say that such air strikes shouldn’t be carried on, but he did think there was something wrong with a country where no one questioned that"

Agreed. Luckily for the US, we are not in a country that does not do so, as your posting here on this forum proves, as does the numerous other moral witnesses you have tried to foist on the proceedings. If there *were* a time when nobody questioned it, THEN it would be time to drop everything and wonder what's going wrong.

In fact, as Cornel West put it, in Democracy Matters (2004), page 41,
" we are exceptional because... No other democratic nation reveals so blatantly in such self-deceptive innocence , such self-paralyzing reluctance to confront the night-side of its own history."

Which tells me nothing more than the fact that Cornel West lives in a vaccuum and hasn't visited Ireland, France, Mexico, or Italy recently. The idea that "NO other democratic nation" reveals that so blatantly is ludicrous.

Another pretentious statement.
Cannae- next post.

A pretentious statement to match an allegedly pretentious statement, then?

As for whether it is another pretentious statement, perhaps it is. However, that does not matter. What matters is a little thing called the truth value, and the fact that you are still bashing your head against Cannae and the general consensus of most serious military and historical analysts says something.

As does the fact that several posts in, you are still using sources that amount to "OMG LOOK AT ME THESE PEOPLE SAY I"M RIIIGHT!" rather than bringing serious evidence to the field, or justifying the repugnant idea that a(n aspiring, at least) totalitarian system should have been allowed to continue existing and that a peace made on such grounds would be anything more than a morally indefensible abomination. You went on a massive rampage of American hubris- both actual and alleged- that had nothing to do with the topic or the arguments I was focusing on, and which can easily be picked apart to be ludicrous on its' face.

Yet you seem to have little to no concept of any of this. So, who's being pretentious?

In the end the Emperor was allowed to remain, anyway.

As *charity* or "mercy" by the occupation authorities, not a concession to some rabid militaristic die hards. Which in and of itself helped break the legitimacy of said diehards, and ensured that they have never been able to recover, by revealing their lovely actions for the pointless, miserable national suicide that it was.

Yes, it does seem pointless, but if we should have learned anything from WWI, it's that symbolism can be important.

Well, as I said before,
"The reasons for dropping the bomb were complex; the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima /Nagasaki remains among the most controversial controversial events in modern history"
It´s just my opinion - in fact no one can dictate truth to another.

For once, Ludicus, we agree.

[Hakkapeliitta]

I think that the major point was that had America not nuked 250,000 people then Japan wouldn't have surrendered and millions of Japanese would have died in the fighting. But why does Japan need to surrender, what's wrong with a peace treaty.

It would have been as letting the Nazis rule Germany after the war, and letting them keep Poland to boot. Would you trust the Nazis to conduct their own de-militarisation? Would you trust them to prosecute all the war criminals? Do you think the Allies didn't have the lessons of WW1 in mind when they were laying out the terms of surrender to the Axis and Japan too?

I know we in the west have been taught that the Nazis were bad, but what we haven't been taught is that the Japanese were just as bad. Bad meaning aggressive, genocidal, racially motivated, militaristic, authoritarian, and all-round murderous.

Probably is the amount of deaths, even then if someone nuked a military base then it would probably cause less controversy than nuking a city such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, or at least they had military targets enough to warrant the destruction of both cities. The only reason they were spared for as long as they were was to use the nukes on them. In the absence of nukes they would have been destroyed earlier, probably with no less loss of life.

[the new username]

They were-Japan had a possibitity to surrender, which they refused. An Invasion of Japan and by the U.S and the following battle for the control of the island would cause millions of deaths and would cause even more impact and destruction than the bombs had.

[Ludicus]

The relevant part of a long post,

Turtle

It doesn't matter about the nation's prior track record or where it is; it is invariably ugly and nightmarish...That is why it is morally justified to bomb and bomb...because as an authoritarian-slash-pseudototalitarian regime, it was unworthy of being spared.

Originally Posted by Ludicus
"I bet you hate your (great) President; Barack Obama is against the use of nuclear weapons, at any time or under (almost) any circumstances"
Turtle
Yes, I do.

1) You should not confuse people and regimes.

2) Read my lips, totalitarian regimes can and should be defeated without the use of atomic bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, vaporizing and burning to death hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

3)The Soviet Union itself disintegrated in 1991. The end of totalitarianism in Maoist China happened even more quickly. The unconditional surrender was a mere pretext to use the bomb, in my opinion. Admiral Leahy was right, using the bomb, the free and democratic America adopted a standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.

That sort of system is too dangerous to be allowed to exist in *anyone's* backyard,

Ah, the "just war".
Someone wrote about ancient Rome,
"The view has been held that the Romans did not have a consciously aggressive policy towards the rest of their world; that their wars tended to happen either because of their fear of threats to their security, or the security of their boundaries, or in defence of their allies interests. (" just war"). They were not conscientious imperialists"
In fact,this sounds strangely familiar.

Did your teacher ever tell you about the problems with using sources like that?

Another utterly stupid comment. I highly doubt that you can locate proof that these quotes are fake. How do you dare writing such silly statements?
Argue as much as you want, but- like it or not, according to top US military leaders,

"the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral", Ernest J. King)
---
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing". Eisenhower
---
"In my opinion it was a monumental failure of statescraft on the part of the allies in not consumating this end" (link to the facsimile of the letter, previous post)
MacArthur
---
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment"
Admiral William F. Halsey
---
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated"
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group report, 1946,
---
"The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it."
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker

[Turtler]

@Ludicus

To show you are willfully misrepresenting my point, you specifically try and stuff words into my mouth- having failed to do so about some delusions of American exceptionalism or unique moral worth- about how North Korea, Iran, etc. al. should be nuked. Wake the bloody hell up. The reason why I justify the nuking of Japan is not only because of the regime itself, but because of tactical and strategic necessity. IE: There was zero better options from what we could tell! Precisely because of the military and geographical defenses of the Japanese Home Islands, and the nature of the Japanese government to spur on their troops in the field to continue killing, to force Japanese civilians to do the same, and to have engendered (alongside our own propaganda) a hatred that would make excesses by Western Allied troops in an invasion of Japan- especially a bitter and prolonged one- unacceptably risky.

Given the different political and military situations of all three regimes you list, and how much technology has advanced- and *ESPECIALLY* the lack of intensely personal hatred towards them, I feel fully confident that we will not be forced to resort to *nearly* as crude a tool for liberation as a WMD. What those are exactly is beyond the scope of the current discussion, but there is nowhere near a pressing need for the use of nuclear weaponry on the reorganized Axis of Evil, or China, or what-have-you.

This does not mean that as totalitarian regimes, they should be allowed to exist; they shouldn't be, and indeed their destruction is nothing less than a moral duty. However, it can be done far more readily and at far less cost than *any* of the options the Allies faced with Japan in the crucial days of 1945.

Furthermore, this is different from believing Obama was wrong to give assurances that he will not use the bomb. Just because there isn't a situation *at present* that does not even remotely call for the bomb does not mean one should get entangled in meaningless and unnecessary promises or commitments. Pace Machiavelli, in terms of pragmatism the best promise is one not given.


[I]

1) You should not confuse people and regimes.

I haven't. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed out the distinction between Japanese civilians and military (such as pointing out the presence of the latter in H and N) and the more dovish members of the regime that tried to stop the war hawks from going off half-cocked. It's you that's been trying to remove the regime from the picture altogether, but blindly stating that every single person in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a civilian or an innocent.

The death of the innocent is always a tragedy. However, it is not always avoidable. The actions of said regime made it certain that it wasn't on some level.

2) Read my lips, totalitarian regimes can and should be defeated without the use of atomic bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, vaporizing and burning to death hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Totalitarian regimes can and should be defeated in the least bloody and traumatic fashion. Even if the unique characteristics of said regime make the use of fllipping *WMD* the least traumatic and bloody fashion. I fail to see why it is a moral imperative to allow the deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions more simply because we cannot kill people in the way *you* personally view as morally unapproachable. Dead Is Dead Is Dead Is Dead Is Dead, and splitting hairs like this is tasteless and unnecessary, especially under these circumstances.

Admiral Leahy was right, using the bomb, the free and democratic America adopted a standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.

Which only shows that neither you nor he have A: any concept of what "Barbarians" of the "dark age" did or were, and B: that the deaths of hundreds or millions through neglect is absolutely kosher. You've already stated your belief about the moral repugnance of using carpet bombing- which is actually something that can be defended- but at the same time you apparently believe that having done said firebombing and blockade, we can somehow keep ourselves superficially cleaner if we don't use a certain weapon, even if not doing so leads to more death and suffering all around.

That's not moral superiority, that's tasteless posturing.

Another utterly stupid comment.

Utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and a logical fallacy you might have heard of. You act that somehow linking to repetitive ethos statements somehow makes your argument better. It does not. It just makes it less coherent, and more like you can't actually tie it in organically.

I highly doubt that you can locate proof that these quotes are fake. How do you dare writing such silly statements?

Another misrepresentation.

At no point did I write that they were fake. In fact, I assumed that they weren't. I wrote that they were biased and more importantly absolutely irrelevant. They bring absolutely nothing more to the table than person X's opinions, and if I wanted to know Person X's opinions I would GOOGLE Person X. Giving their actual arguments, evidence, and reasons is different. But just citing the opinion tells us absolutely nothing worthwhile to the basic argument itself.

Argue as much as you want, but- like it or not, according to top US military leaders,

"the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral", Ernest J. King)

Yes, yes Yes. More Opinions. Ask me if I give a damn. Evidence and Argumentation; or else we just have an echo chamber devoid of substance. Which is why (along with sheer laziness and lack of inclination on my part) to list the equally numerous people in equally numerous positions (and often on both sides of the conflict) who were in favor of dropping the bomb. I could do it, but it would be no more valid by itself as what you're doing.

It's called Bandwagon Fallacy, and you are trying to structure an argument around it. That is not something anyone with half a whit of competence or self-awareness does.

---
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing". Eisenhower

Nevermind the importance of an unconditional surrender, discussed in excess above.

Bandwagon Fallacy. Give arguments and evidence used.

Let's see how many times I can repeat that. Maybe it will simulate the repetitiveness I feel when you resort to "Person X said Y Like I Do" Bandwagon arguing.

---
"In my opinion it was a monumental failure of statescraft on the part of the allies in not consumating this end" (link to the facsimile of the letter, previous post)
MacArthur

Bandwagon Fallacy. Give arguments and evidence used.

---
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment"
Admiral William F. Halsey

Bandwagon Fallacy. Give arguments and evidence used.

---
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated"
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group report, 1946,

Right. This is completely ignoring the additional human cost (well in excess of the Atomic Bombings) that delay would've caused, AND ignoring the numerous Japanese hard-liners who tried to prevent the sacred and revered Emperor himself from surrendering. That is what I call overconfidence and pretension.

Bandwagon Fallacy. Give arguments and evidence used.

---
"The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it."
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker

And the consensus is? Where did he find that assumption? Which scholars? What reason do we have to believe that there is any consensus beyond what he pulled out of his arse for that statement, especially given how lively the debate is? I'd like to see it presented, but the chances of you actually doing so beyond the soundbite are slim to nonexistant. Oh Well...

Bandwagon Fallacy. Give arguments and evidence used.

In regards to Cannae, I think a great deal of the issue centers around the specifics of the battle when in reality I just picked a random..."crushing" shall we say? victory in order to illustrate a point about general warmaking strategies, and to explain why I did not find the mention of strategies of annihilation in one of Ludicius's sources to be troublesome. Which was then sidelined to the greater debate about the merits of Cannae itself, which have little relevance to the overall point. I will repost the entire segment here for the sake of relevance and clarity.

A bit late. I already have.

And again, I fail to see much of anything wrong with the quote you are postulating. A strategy of annihilation is almost by definition one that centers around the utter obliteration of the enemy's means of persecuting the war, and which is probably the most humane form of warfare (to the extent such an oxymoron exists). It is better to fight through the bloodshed of one day of a Cannae than to subject all involved to the slaughter of *years* of back and forth like-say- the American Civil War. In doing so it allows the enemy's resistance to be smashed in the quickest possible time, at the lowest potential cost to oneself and to others. Even to the enemy's population, given the fact that as grisly as some tactics used for a strategy of annihilation are on the civil populace, the costs of a prolonged war (especially a modern total one) are far worse.

It is better to level two Japanese cities with singular weapons of mass destruction- killing all those inside-- than to go through something like Operation Downfall, which would see that happen anyway, but also to vast numbers of other Japanese cities and people at a considerable cost in Western life to boot. This does not mean it translates to being the "best", or "objectively good." It is just the least-worst.

I hope this clarifies it: the point I was trying to make was that the most humane way to wage a war that's already become pitched *is* to flatten the enemy's ability to wage war- preferably in the field (ala Zama), if need be through other means- and thus bring the bleeding and suffering to a quick close rather than allow an attritional slugfest to drag out with suffering all around. The nuclear bombs were made to this end, and I believe them to be far more humane than caging the Japanese (and anybody unlucky enough to be with them) and letting them starve to death and get killed off by abuse from both the Western Allies and the Japanese regime.

That is why-say- Panama was far more humane (not necessarily justified/moral, but humane in terms of civilian suffering) than Desert Storm, which saw the Iraqi Army and especially elements of the Republican Guard escape due to a self-imposed ceasefire, and who would go on to wreck havok in internal genocides and guerrilla wars against Iraqi citizens. I hope that explains things, and gets us back on topic.

[Erebus Pasha]

Can we please ensure we stay on-topic (more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and less about the Battle Cannae), and whilst I admire fierce debate I don't want to see any more mud-slinging or warnings could be handed out.

[Ludicus]

Bandwagon ... Yes, yes Yes. More Opinions. Ask me if I give a damn

Call it what you want, but my quotes are from highly respected military leaders/ politicians (ie, contemporary sources). You should give contemporary US leaders the credit they deserve.

For those interested ( not you, obviously)
Hoover,
"tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
(Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347)
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

By the way, who were some of the people who supported Truman in his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan? very few.

This is completely ignoring the additional human cost (well in excess of the Atomic Bombings) that delay would've caused

Or not. How do you know? Why are you worried about it? do I sense a little hypocrisy?

The reason why I justify the nuking of Japan is not only because of the regime itself, but because of tactical and strategic necessity. IE: There was zero better options from what we could tell!

Quoting yourself? A link to your essays, please.
Because you say so? Ask me if I give a damn about your opinion.

That said, some historians, for example - Baldwin, Feis, Sherry, and many others-as well the conclusion of the US Strategic Bombing Survey- have argued that the atomic bomb attack was unnecessary that had the United States agreed to the survival of the emperor (which it ultimately did agree to in any case), or waited only for a few more weeks, the Japanese would have surrendered.

blindly stating that every single person in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a civilian or an innocent.

A blasphemy. Frankly. Hiroshima was spared for mass killing at a later date. The same applies to Nagasaki.

indeed their destruction is nothing less than a moral duty.

Don´t make me laugh. At the same time, backing dictators and autocrats in power: Pinochet, Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein (yes, Saddam); Trujillo, Fulgencio Baptista, Franco, Marcos, Noriega (before the whole question of drugs came up, Suharto (East Timor invasion- USA approved the invasion- The Indonesian invasion led to the deaths of some 200,000 East Timorese, one of the greatest bloodlettings in modern history compared to total population), Mobutu, Ian Smith... a never ending list in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Europe.
Indeed, this a strange case of spreading democracy, supporting dictators.

Where did he find that assumption? ... Which scholars?

Samule Walker is the official historian of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission . He deserves credit. Don´t be lazy, read the book,
The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, 1990
Excerpt,
"Since the United States did not drop the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as policymakers later claimed, the key question and the source of most of the historiographical debate is why the bomb was used....There were no moral, military, diplomatic, or bureaucratic considerations that carried enough weight to deter dropping the bomb and gaining its projected military and diplomatic benefits."


Food for Thought

A seminal work- try to read the full text with an open mind.

"The Atomic Bomb: Bridging the Gap Between the Scholarship and the Textbook", Samuel Earls, 2011.

Conclusions, a brief excerpt,

"As Mary Beth Norton, Author of A People & A Nation admits in her Reflections of a Longtime Textbook Author, or, History Revised-and Revised Again" there are many restraints inherent in the process which keep textbooks relatively standard. For starters textbooks have to be able to sell. Norton may think for instance that the dropping of the atomic bomb was the most horrible blunder of American history, but she would not be able to say that in the textbook...Few teachers want to buy a textbook that was so openly critical of the United States.

However, as her book shows, she was still able to express her criticism of the bomb without saying anything explicit...Publishers force textbooks to change over time. Yet, this process doesn´t seem to have affected the presentation of the atomic bomb as much as it should have...the account of the dropping of the atomic bombs and the decision to do so remained fairly consistent in the textbook until the 1990s.

It seems that people wanted to climb to the numbers which provided more justification for the use of a such terrifying weapon as the atomic bomb.

While textbooks definitely leave room for improvement, it is hard to imagine a textbook being much more critical of the decision to drop the bomb and being more thorough in an examination of both sides of the debate then Norton´s, Brinkley´s and Boyer´s texts. What more does an open minded person with critical thinking skills need?"

Hurry up, enlighten yourself, read the full text.

[DarkArk]

So I'm going to wade into the middle of this. Let's see how it goes.

I dislike what if scenarios because often times there isn't real evidence that can be used to analyze it. They're fun, but also not strictly good history. Events didn't unfold the way they did, and making projections can be fraught with all sorts of problems.

You should give contemporary US leaders the credit they deserve.

Contemporaries can also be shockingly wrong about the situation that they're in, since they are caught up in the middle of things. They don't have anywhere close to a clear picture that historians can get later, because they have the luxury of time and sources from all sides.

Though since you like contemporary sources, let's try the Emperor's surrender speech:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

He mentions the atomic bomb as an explicit reason for why Japan should surrender.

Or not. How do you know?

Let's look at US planning for the rest of August 1945. The bombers were going to be turned on Japan's rail network, which had been relatively untouched. Japan's food network was dependent on shipping food from high-production areas to high-consumption areas. Tokyo only got 1% of its food from local sources. Going through with this would have completely destroyed what remained of Japan's cities, as people ran into the countryside seeking food that no longer could reach them.

I think it is important to note that Japan's military leaders still refused to surrender in August 1945, even after the Soviets entered the war and the atomic bombings. Without a firebombing campaign and nuclear attack, I find it laughable that the Japanese would have submitted to unconditional surrender in such a situation. Operation Ketsugo was still in place, and so Japan's leaders would not have seen the need to surrender unconditionally to an enemy that fundamentally could not destroy them. There's a reason the Emperor had to make the Fateful Decision in the first place, his advisers were at an impasse and the military still refused to surrender.

Also the US didn't keep the Emperor. Not in anywhere close to the capacity that he had before the war. He went from a revered god to the most insignificant of figureheads and his imperial bureaucracy was completely destroyed. That was also not a decision that would have been made before the war was over and the occupation began. The US had every reason to demand unconditional surrender and dismantle the Imperial institutions. That the Emperor survived as a figurehead belays the real changes that happened to Japan's government, and is an interesting curio rather than a meaningful policy decision.

Don´t make me laugh. At the same time, backing dictators and autocrats in power: Pinochet, Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein (yes, Saddam); Trujillo, Fulgencio Baptista, Franco, Marcos, Noriega (before the whole question of drugs came up, Suharto (East Timor invasion- USA approved the invasion- The Indonesian invasion led to the deaths of some 200,000 East Timorese, one of the greatest bloodlettings in modern history compared to total population), Mobutu, Ian Smith... a never ending list in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and Europe.
Indeed, this a strange case of spreading democracy, supporting dictators.

Yes, welcome to America's Cold War foreign policy. You've found that when ideals meet reality, reality wins pretty much every time. Would you suggest that the US go to war with these governments and depose them? Or ignore them and have them fall under the Soviet sphere of influence?

"Since the United States did not drop the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as policymakers later claimed, the key question and the source of most of the historiographical debate is why the bomb was used....There were no moral, military, diplomatic, or bureaucratic considerations that carried enough weight to deter dropping the bomb and gaining its projected military and diplomatic benefits."

That sentence is a whole lot of nothing. Basically that the benefits of the bomb outweighed other considerations. What a startling non-judgmental insight.

Saying that we should go and read the text isn't really a good argument. Make a concise summary of their argument if you want them to back you up, because I'm not even close to understanding these historians arguments right now.

[Angrychris]

Hard to justify mass killing of any group from any time.

[the new username]

Hard to justify mass killing of any group from any time.

This

During drastic times people take drastic measures.

[Vanoi]

And now we are back to the same old arguments. Including the very de-bunked one of citing military leaders and their opinions on the usage of the bomb.

[Knight of Heaven]

Ludicus why wait for Japan to surrender? The US didn't want to end the war in 6 months. They wanted it to end as quickly as possible. Blockade would haven't forced them to surrender since blockades only choke, they don't kill. Only real options were invasion, or using the atomic weapons.

Whataver you say might be or not true, but you cant ever say the bombings were ever justified by a moral stand point. Ever! specialy agains civilians.
Biggest clue no other country or even usa itself ever used it again in its many conflicts.
Off course in the meanwhile the Universal decleration of human rights was created.

About the choke though its knowned in war to make the enemy surrender, in many ocasions.

[DarkArk]

Biggest clue no other country or even usa itself ever used it again in its many conflicts.

Incorrect. Look up the bombing campaign against North Vietnam, also to a lesser degree in Korea. The big reason it hasn't been used since is because it's wasteful. It's easier to just use smart bombs then leveling the whole place to hit one target. That kind of precision didn't exist in WWII.

but you cant ever say the bombings were ever justified by a moral stand point.

Sure you can. They helped bring an end to a war that killed 67 million people, and the continuation thereof killed thousands more every day. In war, exchanging 200,000 of them to get peace so that more of your own people don't die is what you do.

What is weird is that people get this notion that Japan was well and truly defeated in August of 1945. They weren't really. They still controlled vast swaths of East Asia and China, which would have had to have been fought over without the bombing. Thousands were still dying in China right up to the end of the war.

Ever! specialy agains civilians.

Except they weren't. One of the most fascinating things about the Atomic Bomb Museum in Hiroshima was how fair it was with regards to how important the city was as a military target. It was a supply center for the entire region. The vast majority of the population was mobilized into the war effort. It was a valid military target, the Japanese don't deny that.

[Ludicus]

DarkArk

Contemporaries can also be shockingly wrong about the situation that they're in

Following your reasoning, the same applies to Truman´s decisions. Contemporary military leaders.That makes a difference. Also, for example, Mandate for Change was published in 1963.

He mentions the atomic bomb as an explicit reason for why Japan should surrender

Certainly, but why did the US want complete unconditional surrender? Japan wanted to retain the Emperor, and the Emperor system went back to antiquity in Japanese culture.
Hoover suggested,
"tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan"
Why not? probably the Japanese would have accepted partial continuation or even total suspension (the retention of the Emperor with or without limited number of functions given the throne) the best alternative to the Imperial system. Total continuation was certainly unacceptable to the US.
Suzuki clealry explained the problem of "unconditional surrender" on June 9, 1945, "Should the emperor system be abolished, the Japanese people would lose all reason for existence"
Obviously. Truman knew it.

Also the US didn't keep the Emperor.

Sorry, US keeped the Emperor. Emperor and the Imperial house still maintaining their identity, but in protective custody. US ended backing away from unconditional surrender when the war was ended. Accept a condition but call it unconditional surrender does not make sense.

Yes, welcome to America's Cold War foreign policy.

Certainly. Yet, that is not a good excuse (its always the same old story, the necessary evil argument) for a free and democratic country. Ask Obama, he is trying to change the White House foreign policy.

Make a concise summary of their argument

There are different kind of arguments/different historians, but according to Walker (1996),

"In the case of the use of the bomb, collective memory, from all available evidence, regards Truman's action as a sound decision that ended the war without requiring an invasion of Japan and thus saved large numbers of American lives. Most Americans, it seems safe to say, would accept without serious reservation the assertion of President George H. W. Bush in 1991 that dropping the bombs "spared millions of American lives".

"According to the scholarly consensus, the United States did not drop the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of American lives. Although scholars generally agree that Truman used the bomb primarily to shorten the war, the number of American lives saved, even in the worst case, would have been in the range of tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

Specialists also view political/diplomatic objectives as a secondary objective in the decision. They have not fully accepted the revisionist claim, articulated most trenchantly by Alperovitz, that Truman acted primarily to impress the Soviets and advance American political objectives, but it seems clear that the political implications of the use of the bomb figured in the administration's deliberations.

The scholarly consensus holds that the war would have ended within a relatively short time without the atomic attacks and that an invasion of the Japanese islands was an unlikely possibility.

It further maintains that several alternatives to ending the war without an invasion were available and that Truman and his close advisers were well aware of the options"

Recent scholarly work by James G. Hershberg and Barton J. Bernstein has shown how former government officials consciously and artfully constructed the history of the decision. James B. Co-nant, anxious to head off criticism, convinced former Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to publish an article explaining and justifying the use of the bomb. In his widely publicized article, which appeared in Harper's in early 1947, Stimson suggested that the atomic attacks had avoided more than one million American casualties. Truman later drew on Stimson's estimate to support his claim that the bomb had saved as many as half a million American lives. Those figures formed the basis for popular views of Truman's action and decisively influenced collective memory of the reasons for his decision"

----

From my previous source, "The Atomic Bomb: Bridging the Gap Between the Scholarship and the Textbook", Samuel Earls, 2011.

"... it seems that people wanted to climb the numbers which provided more justification for the use of such a terrifying weapon as the bomb.
As Ramsey notes, "there are seldom "Great Historians" whose ideas are so profound that they single-handedly restructure the historiography. While few would label Henry Stimson as a great historian, his argument in Harper´s Magazine clearly shaped the the historiography in the textbook. Why was this case? maybe it was because Stimson told people what they wanted to hear...Stimson claimed that they prevented about a million American casualties"

[DarkArk]

Following your reasoning, the same applies to Truman´s decisions.

Of course. Though I'm of the opinion that Japan's leaders had a better idea of what situation Japan was in their US equivalents.

US ended backing away from unconditional surrender when the war was ended.

No, it did not. The surrender documents were for an unconditional surrender. No one in Japan knew if the Emperor was going to be allowed to stay. That he did was because he could be excised from the system he had been a part of. If he couldn't he would have been done away with same as the rest of the Imperial bureaucracy. The US did not keep the Emperor; it repurposed him for their own ends.

But this gets to the further question of why the US should consider the demands of a nation that had attacked it unprovoked and was now being defeated. Why should the Japanese be allowed to conditionally surrender when they had done nothing but continually attack their neighbors?

why did the US want complete unconditional surrender?

See WWI.

Emperor system went back to antiquity in Japanese culture.

Depends on the era. The Emperor had never ruled the country since the fall of the court system at the end of the Heian Period. At various points the Emperor was reduced to selling calligraphy to pay his bills. That it was important to the Japanese in 1945 is true, but not throughout all Japanese history.

Your sources continue to make non-arguments. Other choices for Truman? Why would they have been better?

would have been in the range of tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

That's not what casualty predictions for Operation Olympic show (yes, I know your sources says this is wrong). Okinawa caused 50,000 Allied combat casualties, 12,000 of whom were killed. Okinawa is a tiny fraction of the size of Southern Kyushu, and the combat conditions would have been similar. Also take into account that Olympic wouldn't have been the end of the war, and Operation Coronet would have been implemented as well.

Never mind the continued war that was going on in the rest of the region, which everyone forgets when discussing the end of the war.

The scholarly consensus holds that the war would have ended within a relatively short time without the atomic attacks and that an invasion of the Japanese islands was an unlikely possibility.

The support for which is? I looked up your source for this quote (links exist for a reason). It likes to make a lot of unsupported statements that the war could have been ended without the bombs, and then fails to say how that would be. So, how can the war end without the bomb?

[Vanoi]

About the choke though its knowned in war to make the enemy surrender, in many ocasions.

Just like the troops on Iwo Jima, right?

[motiv-8]

The scholarly consensus holds that the war would have ended within a relatively short time without the atomic attacks and that an invasion of the Japanese islands was an unlikely possibility.

This is absolutely false, and anyone who knows anything on the subject beyond the "textbook" knows it is, most of all because of the use of a weasel word that is not defined or qualified, "relatively." Having actually studied a wide swath of the scholarly opinions on the subject, I can say that at most there absolutely is no consensus. However the most scholarly and the most judicious works in the last 20 years have firmly supported the idea that the bombs were if surely not the only option to win the war, the best option to win the war, spare lives, and achieve all Allied objectives definitely before the end of 1945, and all that was most important. I studied half a dozen scholars who reached that conclusion while barely even mentioning Stimson's Harper's article other than in passing. None of them have been cited by Ludicus or any other person arguing against the bombs, of course. On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem discussing Guy Alperovitz or more recent writers like Ronald Takaki who basically spent two hundred pages trying to explain that the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because Truman was racist and bloodthirsty. Either way I'm loathe to go around in the same pointless circles, so I'll just say that anybody who wants possibly the most balanced view of the events should read articles from Barton J. Bernstein. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but he at least gave equal measure to both sides of the debate rather than write pseudo-propaganda like Alperovitz (or his arch-enemy, Robert Maddox, for that matter).

[Chukada1]

I just think that the royal family should have been executed for negligence and treason.

Let me ask you, if Hitler had surrendered, would he have been re purposed by the allies to act as supreme leader of Germany, or would he have been executed? Hirohito is the Hitler of Japan, and deserved the same fate as Adolf Hitler. None of this, let all the war criminals go on to live prestigious wealthy and rewarding lives in the private sector.

Anybody who believes Japan was about to surrender needs to read beyond an American textbook. Japan's whole plan was to inflict enough losses on the United States, that America would retreat. They had actually not used their trump card yet, which was to throw the whole Japanese nation like a wave against the enemy and inflict casualties in the millions. America had not even attacked the Japanese homeland with combat troops, before the bombs. Why should Japan give up? What do its leaders have to lose at this point? They have already entered the cave of human darkness, there's no going back now.