[Opinion] Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified or no?

[gaymer77]

So I just got done with my 15 page freaking long minimum research paper for my history class tonight (I ended up coming in at 17 pages). Over the course of the class this summer we have had to read several articles about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan and write a précis for each of them. Some have shown why it wasn't necessary while others have shown America had no choice and/or the bombs would produce the most favorable outcome for the surrender of Japan. It got me to thinking, what do people today from around the world think of Truman's decision to drop the bombs? So what do you think of it?

[gaymer77]

My point of the post was not for people to play a Monday morning quarterback but to actually look at what Truman and the Allies knew at the time and wonder if the decision was made correctly at the time. Some critics have argued how Churchill's claim of over a million lives were saved by dropping the bomb & Truman's claim of 500k lives saved are "vastly exaggerated" and it would have only been under 50k lives saved. Others have supported Truman based on their fighting in the war as infantrymen and saw what the Japanese citizens would do to uphold the Emperor's rule over Japan. I was just wanting to have a discussion on what people thought based on the information they had at the time.

[callipygoustp]

Justified.

Edit:
Should be a poll.

[Egomaniac]

We were always taught in school that Japan would never have surrendered without the shock of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As I grew older I began to question how much of that is true and how much is justification.

[Cerilis]

I have come to realize that the purpose more likely was not to shock Japan into surrender, but to shock and show power (aka "big dick") towards the USSR (and anyone else who watched).

So, not justified.

[callipygoustp]

If you ignore the Emperor's own words prior to the bombings, or ignore the various interviews of many soldiers post surrender, sure, it might be questionable what the US did.

Edit:
Really, not surprising that people, 60-80 years later, want to paint the Japanese as victims: there are plenty of people out there that also want to deny the Holocaust.

[Vankrys]

By today standard, using a nuclear device on civilian population is as close to a warcrime as it can be. By 1945 standard, i don't know, those were dark time.

[Yunru]

It has to do more or less with politics. The island they invaded had a lot of people killed and its shown that invading Japanese in ground combat is a bad idea.

And japanese idelology at the time was very weird:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nationalism

The Japanese Navy was in general terms more traditionalist, in defending ancient values and the sacred nature of the Emperor; the Japanese Army was more forward-looking, in the sense of valuing primarily strong leadership, as is evidenced by the use of the coup and direct action. The Navy typically preferred political methods. The Army, ultimately, was the vehicle for the hypernationalists, anti-communists, anticapitalists, antiparliamentarians, and Nationalist-Militarist ideals.

However using nuke was pretty much pointless as doing the normal bombing would have the same effect. Well it was cheaper in some way and faster, but radiation after for americans was not a concern, as it wasnt their land to begin with. It also send a huge political message to other countrys.

But to answer your question, normal bombs would work just fine.

Also this may be interesting:

[ParanoiD84]

It was a total war so yes, the japanese did also slaughter some 20 million chinese.

[Dsonsion]

It was a total war so yes, the japanese did also slaughter some 20 million chinese.

I like the part where disintegrating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians brought the Chinese back to life.

[CostinR]

It was the cheap option for both the United States and even for Japan, the costlier one would have either involved a full ground invasion or starving the Japanese out, and those likely would have killed considerably more people.

If you were Truman's shoes would you send hundreds of thousands of your troops to get killed along with many more of the Japanese or would you end it with 200.000 dead. The argument that the Japanese might have surrendered all the same is not really clear cut: They certainly were offered many chances to surrender and they refused them.

[beanman12345]

After waiting 48 hours after the first bomb dropped and not showing any signs of surrendering, I don't think they were going to. When the second bomb dropped it became "ok this isn't gonna stop, we gotta surrender now."

[ParanoiD84]

I like the part where disintegrating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians brought the Chinese back to life.

I know it's pretty good anyways more people died from regular firebombings it was a total war and everyone targeted civilians in that war. Those 2 nukes most likely prevented far far more deaths.

[Very Tired]

So don't use the bomb and send thousands of your own troops to die in a costly continuation of the war so that maybe, just maybe, slightly more people of the enemy nation would have survived in the end? (Although not really since it could have easily lead to MORE death on both sides if not used)

It's really a clear choice the bombs were justified. It's easy in hindsight to judge decisions of war, like how people are convinced slavery was already on it's way out the door without needing the civil war... but it's not so easy to make those decisions in the present.

[Dsonsion]

I know it's pretty good anyways more people died from regular firebombings it was a total war and everyone targeted civilians in that war. Those 2 nukes most likely prevented far far more deaths.

This is a myth. Or at least a strongly contested issue and the cause of a lot of historic revisionism.
Japan didn't surrender because of the bombs, they surrendered because of the proximity of the Red Army to their coast. Even the US top brass questioned the necessity of the bombs.

Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There 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.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

Also Henry Arnold, Chester Nimnitz and even Eisenhower were adverse to the use of the atomic bombs.

[Cthulhu 2020]

In the past, I'm sure at the time it was perfectly justified and the morals felt sound. Now? You'll probably get a lot of people saying that there were other ways to win the war. But they also weren't there, so what do they know?

Everyone has a justification for their actions, whether seen as good or bad by history later on down the line. A lot of events and behaviors we look at in history is basically humanity being complete and utter dicks to each other, but at the time it was the norm. And in 50 years, people will look back on 2020 and the actions of everyone and think "Wow those guys were assholes, how could they justify acting the way they did?"

[Ihavewaffles]

Or 3rd option, not invade nor nuke japan at all, with their navy shattered n cut off from oil, they can't rebuild their navy n without navy they couldn't get oil back anyways.
You could bomb n isolate japan at will, so they'd be forced to throw in the towel.

Ofc that could potentially mean they end up as north korea. But I doubt it.

Imho japan needed instead to be severly punished for their behavior towards their neighbors. Japanese outdid the Nazis in cruelty..

I wish the red army had invaded.

[PickleballAce]

Europeans mostly use them as a way to try to shift the narrative away from the numerous and objectively far worse atrocities and war crimes committed on their soil by their ancestors.

The Japanese, meanwhile, have long since moved on in quiet reflection (not to mention they wouldn't want to bring the subject up anyway).

I think they fall under the "fuck around and find out" adage.

[Slant]

Justified? From a contemporary viewpoint, absolutely.
In hindsight? Absolutely.

- - - Updated - - -

We were always taught in school that Japan would never have surrendered without the shock of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As I grew older I began to question how much of that is true and how much is justification.

Oh, they would have surrendered. Much like Germany eventually did. When troops waltz into Tokio after it's been basically burned to the ground. That was never the contention, the whole reasoning was... how much Iwo Jima does the US want to continue doing until they are in Tokio?

Also, more pragmatically, since you already invested so many resources in your shiny new toys, why not demonstrate to everyone unmistakingly who's the big boy now..

[Cizr]

Saved countless American lives and ended the war. Justified.