Use of Atomic Weapons

[Vanoi]

This question had come up to some of my friends, was it necessary for the US to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to end Worl War II? most of my friends said yes, but a few of them were un-sure about it and were prety torn about.

Personally i believe the use of atomic bombs was the best way to end the war, for the only other way would be an island invasion which would cost many American lives. (Other countrys like. Britan or Canda, or even Australia would possibly been in the invasion too.) There is no telling how many Japanese lives would have been lost, both soldiers and civilians. Atomic bombs were the best way to end the war since they would have caused the least number of deaths.

[Ludicus]

There is no morality in war, war and morality do not mix.

[strategist.com]

There is no morality in war, war and morality do not mix.

I agree. War brings out the worst of us.

[Ludicus]

I agree. War brings out the worst of us.

Indeed.
Year 1946, Federal Council of Churches, "Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith",
"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."

[<<<SSs]

There is no morality in war, war and morality do not mix.

Actually there is no morality at all, boundaries are made to be pushed and broken, if the us did not use the weapon someone else would have, necessary or not its history.

[Elfdude]

Was it right for the US and Japan to be at war in the first place? No. How can anything else that happens from that point on be anything more than minimization of how wrong it was? Hell we didn't even do that. Was it wrong for us to reject the japanese surrender that came 7 months before which we eventually accepted after the bombing? Very much so. Did it violate international law? Yes. Really, the only reason the U.S. walked away unscathed as it did was because of massive censorship and suppression of the images and realities that the bombs inflicted on people combined with no power left to hold the US accountable.

In January 1945 MacArthur forwarded the japanese offer to surrender to the president of the United States. In April japan appointed a peace advocate Prime Minister. May 8th Japan attempted to surrender to Russia. June 1945 military advisors tell the president that the japanese government is confused and he must clarify his demands. 11th of July 1945 Japan offers to surrender unconditionally with one exception, the maintenance of their traditional monarchy. The US refused talks and eventually the bomb was dropped later on august 6th. The US had failed to respond to any of the peace feelers that the Japanese had put out. The surrender we did get was no different than the offer to surrender in January and the request of the japanese government on the 11th of july.

[LegionnaireX]

Was it right for the US and Japan to be at war in the first place? No. How can anything else that happens from that point on be anything more than minimization of how wrong it was? Hell we didn't even do that. Was it wrong for us to reject the japanese surrender that came 7 months before which we eventually accepted after the bombing? Very much so. Did it violate international law? Yes. Really, the only reason the U.S. walked away unscathed as it did was because of massive censorship and suppression of the images and realities that the bombs inflicted on people combined with no power left to hold the US accountable.

If the Japanese were so willing to surrender months before the bombs were dropped, why did they not surrender once the first bomb hit Hiroshima? Why did they continue sending kamikaze fighters well into Summer 1945? Why was there Japanese holdouts refusing to surrender years after the fact? I smell revisionist history.

Source please.

[Elfdude]

It was no more "right" to nuke the cities than it was to carpet bomb them, which is probably what would've happened if we didn't have the nukes. Whats right and wrong tends to go out the window in wars on the scale of WW2.

That's not true.

If the Japanese were so willing to surrender months before the bombs were dropped, why did they not surrender once the first bomb hit Hiroshima? Why did they continue sending kamikaze fighters well into Summer 1945? Why was there Japanese holdouts refusing to surrender years after the fact? I smell revisionist history.

Source please.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey reveals that the Japanese began peace feelers shortly after their defeat at Midway in April, '42. The Japanese figured they had 16 months from Pearl Harbor to beat the US, without one setback. After failing to conform to their plan they realized their war was doomed. Japanese peace feelers were ignored as the US went for revenge.

Forgive my plagiarism:

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

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

July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).

July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

1945 Truman used atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Now generally considered a war crime (this is by the world, and the international courts), at the minimum it was the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. There was no lack of military targets or a demonstration in a remote place was possible, so the selection of targets is indefensible, leaving aside the issue of whether the bombing was justified in the first place.

To make this decision Truman had to wave aside concerns about postblast radiation, which was an unknown quantity at that time, and even the possibility of an unstoppable chain reaction in the atmosphere which would destroy the world. It was pointed out to him that one bomb dropped on a city would have an effect indistinguishable from and no greater than a big B-29 incendiary raid of the kind already in progress, in terms of immediate casualties and total damage. In other words, this was utterly senseless. And why the second bomb? Whatever point Truman thought he was making was made with the first one. Dropping the bomb to "end the war sooner" was a falsification of history because Truman, in fact, lengthened the war in order to drop the bomb.

First he postponed the Potsdam Conference and thereby the Russian declaration of war on Japan for two weeks until the bomb was ready and then he had the language for assurances to the Emperor deleted so the Potsdam Declaration would be unacceptable to the Japanese. The US Strategic Bombing Survey explicitly stated that the war would have ended sooner if they had chosen different targets -- but the goal was not to end the war but to support an invasion . As to the argument that the bomb saved American lives - it is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November - the date we had planned. The April 30, 1946 study by the War Department's Military Intelligence Division concluded,

"The war would almost certainly have terminated when Russia entered the war against Japan." This remains the only use of atomic weapons in anger.

Before the bomb was dropped, some scientists of the Manhattan Project produced the Franck Report which questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so. It recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area. Facing the long-term consequences with Russia, the report stated prophetically:

"If no international agreement is concluded immediately after the first demonstration, this will mean a flying start of an unlimited armaments race."

Quite simply the American's wanted Hirohito, the Japanese emperor to hang and that's how they justified at the time denying the surrender. We knew the Japanese people would never offer up their god emperor to the hangman's noose and thus we justified a continued war under the guise of they didn't give us an unconditional surrender. This doesn't change the fact that the surrender we did get was the same surrender the Japanese had offered multiple times.

Further if you do some more digging the plot thickens: Even after Okinawa, Marshall said the desperate attempts at surrender were "premature." Going through the list of terrible battles in the Pacific while the Japanese were frantically attempting to end the war is mind-numbing.

Marshall was taking his orders from Harry Hopkins, who has been revealed as Stalin's most important agent in the US. Stalin never declared war on the Japanese and wanted the fighting to continue so that he could occupy Manchuria when he was ready, and when the Japanese were no longer able to resist.

Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote: "The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26, 1945." Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." And General Dwight Eisenhower agreed.

The second bomb is further suspicious because it was not directly ordered by truman but rather by Hopkins. Don't you at all wonder how the soviet union developed their nuclear program? Hopkins was instrumental to that.

[LegionnaireX]

The US Strategic Bombing Survey reveals that the Japanese began peace feelers shortly after their defeat at Midway in April, '42.

Well that's news to the world, specifically the thousands of marines and sailors that died at the hands of the Japanese from '42-'45.

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

You've got to be ing kidding me.







It was not called the "Empire of Japan" arbitrarily. It was a nationalistic regime bent on expansion and suppression, and anyone who says otherwise is a damned fool.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in an attempt to render the American fleet useless against Japan's imperialist ambitions.

1945 Truman used atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Now generally considered a war crime (this is by the world, and the international courts), at the minimum it was the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Just where are you getting this information? I forgive your plagarism, but you still haven't specified the source. Maybe this is because your source is less than reputable?

The atomic bombings have not been ruled to be war crimes by any important international body that I have heard of. The casualty estimates for the bombs are usually less that 200,000. That is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of the war. Projected outcomes for Operation Downfall place the casualty rates for a land invasion in the millions.

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

To make this decision Truman had to wave aside concerns about postblast radiation, which was an unknown quantity at that time, and even the possibility of an unstoppable chain reaction in the atmosphere which would destroy the world.

A few of the men that worked on the Manhattan Project were concerned about the slim possibility of the atmosphere igniting, but they were more worried about the possibility that it wouldn't work at all. It is unclear exactly what the concerns were, and some information would suggest it was disproven before the first test commenced. This was never Truman's call anyway. And its not like the bombs dropped on Japan were the first tests. We first exploded one on our own soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

So that bad joke would have been on us.

As to the argument that the bomb saved American lives - it is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November - the date we had planned. The April 30, 1946 study by the War Department's Military Intelligence Division concluded,

The bombs were dropped in an effort to avoid the need for invasion. Again, where is this information coming from?

Quite simply the American's wanted Hirohito, the Japanese emperor to hang and that's how they justified at the time denying the surrender.

And thats why he lived on as a Japanese symbol until 1989. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito
By the way, his biography in the link above states that he accepted the Potsdam Treaty only after Aug. 14, 1945.

[Elfdude]

Well that's news to the world, specifically the thousands of marines and sailors that died at the hands of the Japanese from '42-'45. You've got to be ing kidding me.

It is, the only requirement for their offer to surrender was to maintain their emperor which they did anyways. This is not some foreign report I'm getting this from this is from the the US government itself. I'm sorry but the images you posted are designed specifically to evoke an emotional reaction, if I post images of the rampant racism what then? No, your claims are based off of false and misleading information.

It was not called the "Empire of Japan" arbitrarily. It was a nationalistic regime bent on expansion and suppression, and anyone who says otherwise is a damned fool.

They offered to surrender all annexed settlements or did you miss that part of my post? It seems to me that you didn't read it considering the source was within the text.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in an attempt to render the American fleet useless against Japan's imperialist ambitions.

Correct. The attack failed and by the battle of midway that was very apparent hence their offer to surrender with their one term (maintaining their emperor which again they did anyways). By the time the bombs were dropped the Japanese military had no airpower, their naval ability had been reduced to near nothing. Most of their active ships were heavily damaged or inoperable. They had one small aircraft carrier left (no planes though) and some 40 heavily damaged destroyers and a few handfuls of smaller ships. American sea mines had completely cut off the country from merchant vessels by this point too.

Just where are you getting this information? I forgive your plagarism, but you still haven't specified the source. Maybe this is because your source is less than reputable?

This is obtained directly from the US's own government reports.

U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/64a.pdf Magic Diplomatic Documents

The US Strategic Bombing Survey (this is where the Japanese offer of surrender in 1942 is officially mentioned by the US government) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombing_Survey

The atomic bombings have not been ruled to be war crimes by any important international body that I have heard of. The casualty estimates for the bombs are usually less that 200,000. That is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of the war. Projected outcomes for Operation Downfall place the casualty rates for a land invasion in the millions.

You're right only one judge of the international courts sided with the Japanese government when they brought it to trial. This doesn't stop it from popularly being considered a war crime and the Japanese government does recognize it as a war crime still.

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives

Oops stumbled upon a repository for the actual sources which confirm everything I've already said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...aki#Opposition

A few of the men that worked on the Manhattan Project were concerned about the slim possibility of the atmosphere igniting, but they were more worried about the possibility that it wouldn't work at all. It is unclear exactly what the concerns were, and some information would suggest it was disproven before the first test commenced. This was never Truman's call anyway. And its not like the bombs dropped on Japan were the first tests. We first exploded one on our own soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)

So that bad joke would have been on us.

This did not stop the American government from considering it a legitimate possibility.

And thats why he lived on as a Japanese symbol until 1989. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito
By the way, his biography in the link above states that he accepted the Potsdam Treaty only after Aug. 14, 1945.

Accepted is different than offered. Accepted implies mutual acceptance. He did try multiple times to surrender; even the military juunta tried to surrender.

*snip*

See above.

Which part and why not?

The war going on longer. See above.

[NONOPUST]

Dropping the bombs was the simplest and easiest way to go about saving millions of lives in what would have been Operation Downfall as well as take Hirohito out of power. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had quite the military presense to justify them enough as targets. Sure, the loss of innocent lives are regrettable, but in essense if the bombs were not dropped - more would have been loss; a lot more. Japan could have avoided this of course, if they had offered an unconditional surrender beforehand - including Hirohito's ousting.

I've had a few discussions on this topic in these forums, and I don't really feel like rehashing already argued-over material, so I just gave the short version. Also, the person who said Morality and War does not mix had a great point.

Operation Ketsugō is an interesting thing to look up on as well.

Que -storm.

[Gordon Freynman]

That's not true.

Which part and why not?

[xcorps]

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

[Col. Tartleton]

If we didn't use them then there would be little to prevent us from using them against the Russians. At which point Russia would use them on us. And we'd continue doing so until we were both blasted to smithereens.

Japan took the bullet that helped stop the cold war. Someone was going to get nuked. Luckily Japan couldn't retaliate and in the face of the hell brought on Japan America adopted a general policy of "I don't think we're ever going to do that again unless They do it first." If Truman hadn't nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki he may have been easier to sway in Korea.

[Elfdude]

I'm not so sure, one of the major fears of the USSR was the fact that the US had already used the nuke demonstrating they were willing to do so. This kicked the russian nuclear program into overdrive.

[Gordon Freynman]

It was no more "right" to nuke the cities than it was to carpet bomb them, which is probably what would've happened if we didn't have the nukes. Whats right and wrong tends to go out the window in wars on the scale of WW2.

[Vanoi]

It was no more "right" to nuke the cities than it was to carpet bomb them, which is probably what would've happened if we didn't have the nukes. Whats right and wrong tends to go out the window in wars on the scale of WW2.

I am not trying to impy it was "right" i am trying to imply it was that, or invade Japan, which would cause more deaths than the atomic bombings themselves.

[Mr. Scott]

Both the firebombs of Tokyo and the two nukes dropped flattened a city. Its just that one took several months and another took several seconds.

It was cheaper, more efficient, and more shocking. By being this dramatic, the Japanese were simply terrified. To the point where they finally surrendered.

I doubt Japan would have surrendered by its own accord (without an invasion or bombing). The bushido code ingrained in Japan wouldn't allow it and the Japanese have shown that they are determined and suicidal enough to kill their own country as long as it means hurting their enemy.

[Elfdude]

Both the firebombs of Tokyo and the two nukes dropped flattened a city. Its just that one took several months and another took several seconds.

Well, that's also ignoring the fallout from the devices. Firebombs destroyed cities but the people were more or less able to escape and the casualty rates were far less.

It was cheaper, more efficient, and more shocking. By being this dramatic, the Japanese were simply terrified. To the point where they finally surrendered.

Again, they had surrendered several times. To say that the atom bombs made them willing to surrender is a complete distortion of what really happened. The US's own declassified documents prove this. There's a reason why the generals and admirals disapproved, and to this day many wonder why it was necessary when the war was already won.

I doubt Japan would have surrendered by its own accord (without an invasion or bombing). The bushido code ingrained in Japan wouldn't allow it and the Japanese have shown that they are determined and suicidal enough to kill their own country as long as it means hurting their enemy.

This is again a distortion of history. Further the ritualized suicide of the bushido code is an ethic that the defeated people kill themselves without harming others. The idea of resistance till death is not a japanese ethic.

[Phier]

This is again a distortion of history. Further the ritualized suicide of the bushido code is an ethic that the defeated people kill themselves without harming others. The idea of resistance till death is not a japanese ethic.

Have you read battlefield accounts? It was most definitely a military ethic at the time.