Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[Chrysia]

I feel like people who bring up other options are saying this with the view of modern Japanese people. Not the guys from the 40's who had contests in China over who could behead the most citizens.

The military leadership was drastically opposed to peace. Without drastic measures the idea that we would have had adequate concessions from Japan is a farce.

The Emperor was already questioning his military council prior to the use of the nuclear weapons, and the military council still refused to surrender after the bombs were dropped. There was a coup attempt against the Emperor because of the surrender. Luckily, the lower orders of the military were largely more loyal to the Emperor than their generals.

- - - Updated - - -

Just as evil as any other military action targeting a civilian population ever conducted. Just because it was nuclear bomb doesn't make it any more evil.

I'd rather die in a nuclear blast than in a air raid by conventional bombers. At least with nuclear weapons you don't even have time to wonder what hit you before you're already dead.

Except the people that died of radiation poisoning.

[Rennadrel]

We should nuke Donald Trump next, though his hair might survive the blast.

[McFuu]

And the bombs were dropped in August, and land invasion planned for November as I recall. (And it is likely that the bombings would have intensified.)

The 3 weeks of Russian involvement in Japanese held territory in Manchuria resulted in 35k deaths, although if the Russians are to be believed, about 90k deaths. And this isn't a densely held area, most of the locals were on the Russian side. I couldn't imagine an incursion into Japan with a lot more civilians being in support of the Japanese.

[Chrysia]

The 3 weeks of Russian involvement in Japanese held territory in Manchuria resulted in 35k deaths, although if the Russians are to be believed, about 90k deaths. And this isn't a densely held area, most of the locals were on the Russian side. I couldn't imagine an incursion into Japan with a lot more civilians being in support of the Japanese.

The civilians supported the Emperor, not the military. Hell, the entire campaign against America was manufactured by the military in direct opposition to popular public sentiment by convincing the Emperor the public actually was in support of it. The military leadership was straight fucked up, but the people were largely indifferent to the war.

[McFuu]

The civilians supported the Emperor, not the military. Hell, the entire campaign against America was manufactured by the military in direct opposition to popular public sentiment by convincing the Emperor the public actually was in support of it. The military leadership was straight fucked up, but the people were largely indifferent to the war.

I understand that, but the emperor was largely a puppet during this time. If the military said the Emperor supported fighting the American's to the last breathe, the civilian population would have largely followed. Even if it wasn't a large following, even a small percentage would have protracted the war and make it far more bloody.

[Moggie]

There's a PBS documentary that gets into a lot of the thought processes and such from that era that people should watch. It's a pretty fantastic documentary called The Bomb. But, regardless unless you were there then it's tough to say whether or not it was necessary. I've talked to quite a few old vets over the years almost all say it was needed.

[Arganis]

I don't really understand why Japan plays victim with this. They were ruthless during WWII and committed many war crimes during what was mostly, if not entirely, a war of aggression based on ethnic superiority. Had the US not dropped the bombs they would have kept on fighting for a lot longer and ten of thousands, if not more, lives would have been lost. They deserved it and it was the right decision. Not to mention it displayed the power of the atom for the world to see in a way that serves as a deterrent to this day.

[Chrysia]

Agreed. In addition to all the suicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, and atrocities committed against prisoners of war, remember the experience the US had just had on Iwo Jima as evidence for how hard the Japanese would have fought to defend Tokyo.

On Iwo Jima, the Japanese commander admitted before the battle that it was unwinnable, yet he refused to surrender and the defending force basically fought until the last man. They had approximately 21,000 troops and wikipedia lists 18,000 dead, 216 taken prisoner, and 3,000 in hiding. They wounded 20,000 Allies and killed another 6,000. So yeah, the invasion of Japan itself could have been much, much worse than the bombing was.

Here's another post about the next battle, at Okinawa, where the Allied casualty lists include 26,000 "psychiatric casualties":

"More mental health issues arose from the Battle of Okinawa than any other battle in the Pacific during World War II. The constant bombardment from artillery and mortars coupled with the high casualty rates led to a great deal of men coming down with combat fatigue. Additionally the rains caused mud that prevented tanks from moving and tracks from pulling out the dead, forcing Marines (who pride themselves on burying their dead in a proper and honorable manner) to leave their comrades where they lay. This, coupled with thousands of bodies both friend and foe littering the entire island, created a scent you could nearly taste. Morale was dangerously low by the month of May and the state of discipline on a moral basis had a new low barometer for acceptable behavior. The ruthless atrocities by the Japanese throughout the war had already brought on an altered behavior (deemed so by traditional standards) by many Americans resulting in the desecration of Japanese remains, but the Japanese tactic of using the Okinawan people as human shields brought about a new aspect of terror and torment to the psychological capacity of the Americans.[15]"

Please, please, please stop using the false dichotomy of dropping the bombs versus full-scale land invasion. We had other alternatives. Whether those other alternatives were better than dropping the bombs depends on what criteria you use, but they existed. A land invasion was clearly the least favorable option by far, and I don't think anyone will argue that.

[Frontenac]

Whether the nuclear bombings were necessary or not, an American president will never apologize for them and you'll never see a Japanese Prime minister ask for it either. If they did, the Japanese would be asked to apologize for Pearl Harbour, Mandchuria, the atrocious way they treated their prisoners of war, enemy women used as whores for the japanese officers, etc. Let's face it, the Japanese government and military had it easy after the war. There was no Japanese Nuremberg to judge war criminals. The Emperor was allowed to remain in power. They were lucky that USA needed Japan as a giant aircraft carrier against the Communists.

[Vyxn]

Please, please, please stop using the false dichotomy of dropping the bombs versus full-scale land invasion. We had other alternatives. Whether those other alternatives were better than dropping the bombs depends on what criteria you use, but they existed. A land invasion was clearly the least favorable option by far, and I don't think anyone will argue that.

so please explain these other alternatives? a negotiated peace from which Japan was allowed to keep territory that they invaded and keep their military? is that one of the alternatives because that was what Japan wanted

[Chrysia]

so please explain these other alternatives? a negotiated peace from which Japan was allowed to keep territory that they invaded and keep their military? is that one of the alternatives because that was what Japan wanted

A naval blockade. The Japanese navy was decimated, and the home islands had no production capacity for rebuilding it on an actionable time frame. It would have been basically risk-free. There were other problems with this method, namely it would take longer, it would lead to starvation of the Japanese people, possibly costing more Japanese lives than the bombings did, and there was no guarantee that the Soviets would go along with it. It was, however, an alternative.

[Macaquerie]

The civilians supported the Emperor, not the military. Hell, the entire campaign against America was manufactured by the military in direct opposition to popular public sentiment by convincing the Emperor the public actually was in support of it. The military leadership was straight fucked up, but the people were largely indifferent to the war.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Emperor as if he had any kind of authority. Besides being nothing more than a puppet ruler, Hirohito was a thoroughly undistinguished little man who had absolutely nothing on his mind beyond preserving his throne, not for the sake of holding onto power since he had none to begin with, but for preserving the honor of his dynasty. This we ultimately granted him, allowing the monarchy to continue existing with no power whatsoever, just like it had been for the last thousand years or so.

A naval blockade. The Japanese navy was decimated, and the home islands had no production capacity for rebuilding it on an actionable time frame. It would have been basically risk-free. There were other problems with this method, namely it would take longer, it would lead to starvation of the Japanese people, possibly costing more Japanese lives than the bombings did, and there was no guarantee that the Soviets would go along with it. It was, however, an alternative.

You do realize that at the time of the bombings, the Japanese still held plenty of Allied territory and were in the process of brutalizing and terrorizing civilians there on a daily basis, right? Granted, it's not as if the American military really gave two shits about any of these people, but from a humanitarian perspective, the only real solution was to bring the war to a swift conclusion by any means necessary.

[delus]

So whats your argument? War is very unpleasant thing? or its justified to do atrocities as long as you do not surpasses the enemy?

That both sides did bad things, although dropping the bombs was at least in part reactionary to Japan's aggressiveness.

[Vyxn]

A naval blockade. The Japanese navy was decimated, and the home islands had no production capacity for rebuilding it on an actionable time frame. It would have been basically risk-free. There were other problems with this method, namely it would take longer, it would lead to starvation of the Japanese people, possibly costing more Japanese lives than the bombings did, and there was no guarantee that the Soviets would go along with it. It was, however, an alternative.

how many hundreds of thousands would have died from starvation and lack of medicine America would have gone down in history for starving a nation to death
look we was dealing with fanatical thoroughly brainwashed population that would rather throw them selves and their children of cliffs then surrender to American soldiers
the Japanese had young boys in the thousands lining up to become Kamikaze pilots they just didn't have enough planes to accommodate them all

[Chrysia]

how many hundreds of thousands would have died from starvation and lack of medicine America would have gone down in history for starving a nation to death
look we was dealing with fanatical thoroughly brainwashed population that would rather throw them selves and their children of cliffs then surrender to American soldiers

You're overestimating the Emperor's resolve to continue the war. The Emperor, even before the bombings, was starting to turn against his military council. The citizenry was fanatically devoted to the Emperor, and the Emperor wished to preserve his legacy. If his people had started to starve en masse, it likely would have had a similar effect as the bombs did. I already stated it's unclear whether this would have cost fewer or more Japanese lives. It's right there, in the post you quoted.

The military, even after the bombings, did not want to surrender. They staged a coup, and the people and low soldiery stopped it.

[Collegeguy]

There's a PBS documentary that gets into a lot of the thought processes and such from that era that people should watch. It's a pretty fantastic documentary called The Bomb. But, regardless unless you were there then it's tough to say whether or not it was necessary. I've talked to quite a few old vets over the years almost all say it was needed.

I liked the BBC documentary better.

What really stood out for me was the old guy telling the story how as a child was being trained to strap bombs onto himself and he was willing to die when the invasion came. The next scene he says how the bomb wasn't necessary because they were about to surrender. Ya bro, you were totally ready to surrender.

[Macaquerie]

You're overestimating the Emperor's resolve to continue the war. The Emperor, even before the bombings, was starting to turn against his military council. The citizenry was fanatically devoted to the Emperor, and the Emperor wished to preserve his legacy. If his people had started to starve en masse, it likely would have had a similar effect as the bombs did. I already stated it's unclear whether this would have cost fewer or more Japanese lives. It's right there, in the post you quoted.

The military, even after the bombings, did not want to surrender. They staged a coup, and the people and low soldiery stopped it.

I'm not sure you're getting this - the Emperor of Japan, as far back as anyone can remember, has never held any real power and the entire institution is purely ceremonial. The people were loyal to the Emperor insofar as he was a symbol of the country, but the entire public was pretty much aware that Hirohito was a weak-willed, indecisive dilettante who had no business leading a two man parade, much less a country at war.

Japan was sort of unique in WW2 in that, unlike the other Axis powers, they didn't really have a single leader and were instead run by a cabal of military officers, whose composition changed on a regular basis and was split into various factions in conflict with one another. Much of the ideological drive for conquest was actually supplied by the junior officers, who were far more radical and nationalistic than the stodgy old farts that filled the upper ranks. In fact, who exactly was in charge would probably have been unclear even to the military, especially in the chaotic last days of the war. This means that there wasn't really any individual capable of taking charge and overcoming any internal opposition to peace, and the only solution to that was to make such a demonstration of power that all such opposition was squashed.

[Chrysia]

I liked the BBC documentary better.

What really stood out for me was the old guy telling the story how he as a child he was being trained to strap bombs onto himself and he was willing to die when the invasion came. The next scene he says how the bomb wasn't necessary because they were about to surrender. Ya bro, you were totally ready to surrender.

The entire Japanese side of the war was manufactured by the military council. From the view of the people, the only thing that mattered was the will of the Emperor, from the Emperor's view, the only thing that mattered was his legacy. The military council convinced the Emperor that the war would cement his legacy, which got them the de facto support of the people The Emperor began to mistrust the military council even before the bombs were dropped, he just needed one final push to defy them. Once he did, the people wholeheartedly supported the emperor over the military, who tried to stage a coup. The Emperor was considering surrender, the military council wasn't.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure you're getting this - the Emperor of Japan, as far back as anyone can remember, has never held any real power and the entire institution is purely ceremonial. The people were loyal to the Emperor insofar as he was a symbol of the country, but the entire public was pretty much aware that Hirohito was a weak-willed, indecisive dilettante who had no business leading a two man parade, much less a country at war.

The Emperor's power was in the public's perception of him. That's why they didn't support the coup and it failed. The war would have continued if the Japanese people hadn't supported him.

[Vyxn]

You're overestimating the Emperor's resolve to continue the war. The Emperor, even before the bombings, was starting to turn against his military council. The citizenry was fanatically devoted to the Emperor, and the Emperor wished to preserve his legacy. If his people had started to starve en masse, it likely would have had a similar effect as the bombs did. I already stated it's unclear whether this would have cost fewer or more Japanese lives. It's right there, in the post you quoted.

The military, even after the bombings, did not want to surrender. They staged a coup, and the people and low soldiery stopped it.

yes there was talk of surrender but it wasn't the unconditional surrender that was demanded of Japan. the Japanese wanted to continue to try to do as much damage to the US as they could muster to try to get the US to negotiated a conditional surrender from which Japan was allowed to keep their military some of the territory they invaded and not be occupied. there wasn't ever any talk amongst the Japanese leadership about an unconditional surrender till after the bombing

[ati87]

Ways to be not a monster and still scare the world of the power of a Nuke:

Nuke 1 city instead of 2
Focus on a military base instead of a civilian city
Nuke a mountain, as a warning shot instead of going directly for a civilian city.

3 easy ways you could scare the shit of any person at that time with much less civilian casualties.