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

[ati87]

Really hard to tell now.

Who knows how it all would turn out if not that, for all we know Japan might have ended under USSR or China rule if not that.

All in all Japan brought it on itself, they are all cute animes and robots now, but back then they were in quite a few things worse than Nazis.

I imagine US had only a few shots in the chamber at that and they decided that it's better to make a spectacle out of it to make Japan surrender fast.

This is really difficult to make a call on, it's nice we're in 2k20 where mostly there is a long period of peace and everyone grew soft and virtue signaling, in 1945 after many years of war and many millions dead and atrocities committed by Japan, Nazis aside l, I can see how US command and the world wanted to end this here and now.

There was pretty of wrong doing in Asia without Japanese ambitions.
Japan entering war was probably inevitable given it's ambitions but there was also pretty good justification to if you look it from there POV (strong asian country). To many countries in Asia where colonised and WW2 so even if Japan didn't have certain ambitions you probably would have had large conflict anyway.

[callipygoustp]

You are perfectly aware that the Japanese first decided to go on a fact finding mission.
But again though, just like the other guy, what you are arguing is the first bomb and not the second bomb and the target.

I wasn't arguing anything. I was stating what the Japanese did, plain and simple. Maybe you quoted the wrong person.

[Temp name]

I'm not educated enough about it to really form an opinion, but.. No.

Yes, they (might have) shortened the war, but at what cost? There is a reason no nukes have been used in war since.

[Yadryonych]

I'm not educated enough about it to really form an opinion, but.. No.

Yes, they (might have) shortened the war, but at what cost? There is a reason no nukes have been used in war since.

I don't remember any global war happening since though.

[Kellhound]

Nuclear weapons had one major difference from firebombings, the number of planes required to destroy a city and kill 100,000+ people.

[PACOX]

So nobody had build one yet but somehow the Japanese at the time should have know that the Americans build one? You are arguing both sides.

You said that Japan didn't know what was going on. Except every major contender in the war was racing for the bomb. They would have immediately known what the first bomb was and what it meant. They would have immediately known all their cards were off the table, and yet went for one more bluff, which was met with another bomb.

- - - Updated - - -

So nobody had build one yet but somehow the Japanese at the time should have know that the Americans build one? You are arguing both sides.

You said that Japan didn't know what was going on. Except every major contender in the war was racing for the bomb. They would have immediately known what the first bomb was and what it meant. They would have immediately known all their cards were off the table, and yet went for one more bluff, which was met with another bomb.

[Deletedaccount1]

It's a difficult topic but the one thing I'll add that I haven't seen is that the early and powerful display of the atomic bomb on those cities has probably had something to do with nuclear weapons not being used in war since then. When you consider how many of them have been produced by hostile countries over the last 75 years, it would have taken a miracle to prevent their usage had that precedent not been set early on.

[PACOX]

I'm not educated enough about it to really form an opinion, but.. No.

Yes, they (might have) shortened the war, but at what cost? There is a reason no nukes have been used in war since.

Those two bombs literally shaped the future of warfare. Major powers no longer go to war with each or atleast in the old traditional sense because of the bomb.

As a sole act, the two bombs were devastating. Collectively they paled in comparison to firebombing campaigns and the devastation that would have happened with a ground invasion.

The US didn't bomb modern Japan. It bombed a Japan that was humanitarian crisis throughout SE Asia. One that wasn't going to cease even after being backed into, an evil trying to preserve it by tiring out its opponent instead of throwing in the towel. That way it could still function and rebuild in a reduced capacity.

Japan believed it could come to the table by being stubborn, as if it deserved such a privilege for its atrocities.

Bombs or no bombs, Japan asked for that level of destruction. Could have been from a single device or multiple planes and boots on the ground.

[cubby]

I'm not educated enough about it to really form an opinion, but.. No.

Yes, they (might have) shortened the war, but at what cost? There is a reason no nukes have been used in war since.

You should take a look at the estimated casualty numbers that were expected if the Allies had been forced to take the Japanese Home Islands by conventional arms. Japan and her Emperor had declared that the country will not only NOT surrender, but that each and every citizen should fight to the death. That kind of information should be taken into your calculations, at least in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Those two bombs literally shaped the future of warfare. Major powers no longer go to war with each or atleast in the old traditional sense because of the bomb.

As a sole act, the two bombs were devastating. Collectively they paled in comparison to firebombing campaigns and the devastation that would have happened with a ground invasion.

The US didn't bomb modern Japan. It bombed a Japan that was humanitarian crisis throughout SE Asia. One that wasn't going to cease even after being backed into, an evil trying to preserve it by tiring out its opponent instead of throwing in the towel. That way it could still function and rebuild in a reduced capacity.

Japan believed it could come to the table by being stubborn, as if it deserved such a privilege for its atrocities.

Bombs or no bombs, Japan asked for that level of destruction. Could have been from a single device or multiple planes and boots on the ground.

Exceedingly well put - and could not agree more. Japan could never admit they were wrong, or that they had wronged - until and after they were forced into unconditional surrender.

[ati87]

You said that Japan didn't know what was going on. Except every major contender in the war was racing for the bomb. They would have immediately known what the first bomb was and what it meant. They would have immediately known all their cards were off the table, and yet went for one more bluff, which was met with another bomb.

- - - Updated - - -



You said that Japan didn't know what was going on. Except every major contender in the war was racing for the bomb. They would have immediately known what the first bomb was and what it meant. They would have immediately known all their cards were off the table, and yet went for one more bluff, which was met with another bomb.

Oh god, it is really this hard to understand this?
Just because major powers where developing nuclear bombs at the time doesn't mean that any country knew what was going on when the US dropped one. Sovjet Union didn't know how far the US was at this point it time and event and they where allies who agreed to invade Japan.
Sovjet Union developed there own bomb 4 years later, a lifetime in a situation where you fully expect that you will enter a cold war like situation (even if you didn't have a term for it leading up to it).

[Fantomen]

You should take a look at the estimated casualty numbers that were expected if the Allies had been forced to take the Japanese Home Islands by conventional arms. Japan and her Emperor had declared that the country will not only NOT surrender, but that each and every citizen should fight to the death. That kind of information should be taken into your calculations, at least in my opinion.

With that logic, Japan was "justified" in Nanjing Massacre

You should take a look at the estimated casualty numbers that were expected if the Japanes had been forced to take whole China by conventional arms. Nationalist and Communist leader had decle declared that the country will not only NOT surrender, but that each and every citizen should fight. That kind of information should be taken into your calculations, at least in my opinion.

Or you get absolved becuse it was nucler fire insted of bayonets and bullets that did do the killing? Or is it the end justifies the means?

[PACOX]

Oh god, it is really this hard to understand this?
Just because major powers where developing nuclear bombs at the time doesn't mean that any country knew what was going on when the US dropped one. Sovjet Union didn't know how far the US was at this point it time and event and they where allies who agreed to invade Japan.
Sovjet Union developed there own bomb 4 years later, a lifetime in a situation where you fully expect that you will enter a cold war like situation (even if you didn't have a term for it leading up to it).

Everyone is racing to the bomb because they know it makes a big boom. A big boom goes off in Hiroshima. Doesn't take a nuclear physicst to solve that equation.

[ati87]

Everyone is racing to the bomb because they know it makes a big boom. A big boom goes off in Hiroshima. Doesn't take a nuclear physicst to solve that equation.

So based on this assumption you just made I can assume that the US government, Brazilian government, Russian government, UK government, Swedish government for example didn't screw up there Covid response right? I mean we as a society have experience in how to handle a virus so I guess there wasn't a problem with there respective policies right.

With all due respect, you are unable to defend so maybe it's a smart thing to just call it quits? To safe face.

[Yadryonych]

Russian government, UK government, Swedish government for example didn't screw up there Covid response right?

What's wrong about these governments and their response?

[cubby]

With that logic, Japan was "justified" in Nanjing Massacre

You should take a look at the estimated casualty numbers that were expected if the Japanes had been forced to take whole China by conventional arms. Nationalist and Communist leader had decle declared that the country will not only NOT surrender, but that each and every citizen should fight. That kind of information should be taken into your calculations, at least in my opinion.

Or you get absolved becuse it was nucler fire insted of bayonets and bullets that did do the killing? Or is it the end justifies the means?

Your analogy and/or correlation doesn't make sense. Japan attack us, and attacked China. Asking about the casualty numbers of Japan taking all of China is useless, because it's the morally wrong direction. Japan was the aggressor (in both Pearl Harbor and the Nanking Massacre).

We get absolved because nuking two cities was far fewest casualties, on both sides, that conventional warfare - and in both cases we were defeating the aggressor.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point about Nanking.

[Fantomen]

We get absolved because nuking two cities was far fewest casualties, on both sides, that conventional warfare - and in both cases we were defeating the aggressor.

So you beleve the end justifies the means? This is only a philosophical question, becue a just rule or ethics shall also apply to your own action.

[Milchshake]

Id say no.

Nagasaki is especially indefensible.

• Nagasaki wasnt even the original target. The plane rerouted from Kokura due to bad weather.
• Again due to bad weather, the plane couldnt even see it's target in Nagasaki.
• It dropped the bomb in the North-western part of the city. Which was mostly house, schools, and churches ... ugh.
• Truman wasnt even aware of the second bomb being sent. Let along the eventual target.
• He was so unnerved that lower levels of the Army could proceed with so much devastation, that he quickly took control of the nuclear arsenal away from them.

That's why using nuclear weapons needs presidential authority to this day.

Basically Nagasaki was the army making a bunch of mistakes. Then writing the history as "cost the least lives".

[Thekri]

Your analogy and/or correlation doesn't make sense. Japan attack us, and attacked China. Asking about the casualty numbers of Japan taking all of China is useless, because it's the morally wrong direction. Japan was the aggressor (in both Pearl Harbor and the Nanking Massacre).

We get absolved because nuking two cities was far fewest casualties, on both sides, that conventional warfare - and in both cases we were defeating the aggressor.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point about Nanking.

Well... Japan was certainly the aggressor against China, but Pearl Harbor is a considerably more nuanced situation then America likes to teach in public schools. Yes, Japan shot first, but it was in a position where its survival depended on war with the United States, and the window of opportunity to do so was closing rapidly.

You have to go quite a way back to really understand Pearl Harbor, I am going to start with Perry's expedition in 1852, but it really starts before then if you want to do some more reading past that. Short version, the US "won" the race with European powers to add Japan to its sphere of influence, forcing Japan to interact with the world in a way it did not want too. Japan did not like being placed in that position, but it wasn't fool enough to actually go to war to stop it. So it rapidly started modernizing (Several other Asian Countries did too, notably Thailand, but none were as successful at it as Japan).

This all came to a head in the Russo-Japanese war, probably the most important war that most people have never heard of. Japan attacked Russia over a disagreement over who got to fuck over the Koreans (Since building an empire was considered an essential part of modernizing at the time), and then proceeded to absolutely flatten Russia in an epic fashion. Just as at Pearl Harbor, Japan opened with a surprise attack, and just like Pearl Harbor, it was not particularly decisive. Russia was not a pushover at the time, they were considered very much a modern world power, particularly their navy, which had a pretty good track record over the previous century. Tsushima was the most important battle of the conflict, and very much changed world history. Russia sailed its Baltic Fleet, which was a competitive, if somewhat aged, European Navy, all the way around the world to destroy the Japanese navy. Admiral Togo destroyed them in five hours, in one of the most decisive battles in human history. In five hours, Russia stopped being a world power, and the Russian Empire never came back. There is a reason that the Russian Revolution really started in the Russian Navy.

Tsushima had a major effect on the way the world saw military power. By the early twentieth century, a Navy was very much the essence of a nations global influence, hence the absolutely staggering arms race that was going on. However, to win a naval fight, you really need to mass pretty much your whole navy, and actually commit it to a battle. Tsushima showed what happened when you lose, and that absolutely terrified everyone. I touched on this effect briefly when talking about Winston Churchill in another thread, although I didn't go into detail there. Essentially, Churchill was unable to commit the Royal Navy in WWI, because of fears of losing the fleet. Jutland was a frustratingly inconclusive, with neither country willing to risk the future of their empire on one engagement. So Gallipolli was his path to actually being relevant to the war effort. Anyway, this was a common theme across the worlds thinking of the time. You need a huge navy, but you really shouldn't actually use it.

The second effect, and what is more relevant to this thread, is what Tsushima did to the national psyche of Japan. By challenging a major European power, and crushing them so convincingly, the old traditional hardliners got swept away, and replaced with the militarist, empire building, modernist faction. A huge surge of Japanese patriotism and nationalism arose, coupled with the idea that it was Japans divine destiny to always win, and build a truly global empire. After all, if Japan could flatten Russia so early in its development, the US and Britain were clearly in reach. This myth of national invinsibility and militarism led directly to Japans absolute rampage across Asia over the next 30 years. Just as Russia stopped being a major power in 5 hours, Japan very much became one, with a seat at the table at major treaties and world conferences, the only non-European (Or European descended) power taken seriously there.

The US was not happy with this. Not happy at all. America's own colonial ambitions very much saw the Western Pacific as its territory, especially after the mostly accidental conquest of the Philippines. Japan was a huge threat to American ambitions in the region, and after Tsushima, war with Japan became commonly considered to be increasingly inevitable. The US worked hard to contain Japan short of Warfare. There is a whole weird part of history during the Russian Civil War, with US and Japanese forces in Siberia, technically allied, but very much trying to screw each other over. By the 1930s, the charade of friendliness was gone, and the US and Japan were open rivals. The US was choking Japan of resources through oil and rubber embargoes, with the cooperation of the British and Dutch.

The US was also undergoing a truly titanic military buildup, something that is massively underappreciated in history textbooks. The US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was in no way the main combat power of the United States, as most high school history books claim. The ships were old, in poor repair, and were assumed to be relegated to a support role in any conflict. But what the US DID have by 1941 is 18 new fleet carriers fully funded and being built. 8 new battleships were either already launched, or ready to be launched, and another 12 were funded and being built, all of these ships were an order of magnitude more capable then the 25 year old ships at Pearl Harbor. The US had more than doubled its navy in 4 years, and was going to double twice over in the next 4, regardless of what Japan did. The Two Ocean Navy act was the largest spending bill as a portion of US GDP ever, it still hasn't been broken today. It passed the house on a 316-0 vote with less then an hour of deliberation.

In short, by December of 1941, Japan was out of time, and facing an existential crisis. Fight now, or forever be a vassal to the US in the Pacific. It couldn't match what the US was already doing, and it knew it. The new warships were already entering service, although most had not yet sailed into the Pacific. Public support for war with Japan was 68% by April 1941, war was coming weather the Japan wanted it or not, and if the US started a war after mid-1942... well, pretty much it would look like what actually did happen after 1942, only without the period of Japanese victories earlier.

[Auxora]

The important thing when looking at historical events like this is that you have to really put yourself in the place of the person making the decision *at that time* and not think of it in current terms and with the benefit of hindsight, which can be quite difficult for people to separate.

There were really 2 big reasons the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And there are some important details that are often left out by people admonishing the US for doing it in 1945 in with a 21st century view.

The #1 reason is because the Japanese had fought so tooth and nail, with almost no surrenders, for every inch of territory while island hopping to Japan. This only got bloodier and worse as the US captured islands closer to Japan like Okinawa. The Japanese had held lots of weapons and ammunition for the homeland fight, beginning to train common citizens like was done with the Volksturm in Germany for every man and some women old and young to fight to the death to stop the American invasion. The US had just seen what fighting to the last man meant in Germany. Estimates to Truman were for well over 200,000 American casualties to capture the Japanese homeland. Additionally the estimates were for over 1M Japanese to be killed in a ground invasion. So the atomic bomb was viewed as a way to save both American and Japanese lives by ending the war early.

The #2 reason for the bomb was as a message to the USSR. The Cold War all but started before the end of WW2, and by then it was very clear that the Soviets were going to be a big problem for the US post-WW2. This wasn't the primary reason it was used, but it was viewed as a bonus to deter the Soviets post-war.

In the defense of the US, they went to the Japanese authorities prior to the bombings and flat-out told the Japanese leaders that we have a very powerful secret weapon capable of destroying entire cities (we didn't say atomic bomb, just this) and warned the Japanese to surrender or it would be used. We even GAVE them a list of 6-8 cities that could be attacked and said that one of them will be if they refuse. They refused. We bombed Hiroshima. The Japanese still did not believe we had the atomic bomb and mistakenly guessed that the Hiroshima bombing was simply a large scale Stratofortress bombing. We told the Japanese after Hiroshima see we weren't bluffing, surrender or we'll bomb another city on the list. Japan refused, thinking we were bluffing. Only after Nagasaki did Japan conclude that the US really did have the atomic bomb, and then they finally surrendered.

Good stuff to know. This is the real history. Would it have been better to just invade and lose 1.2M+ lives through conventional war takeover of Japan to force them to surrender? Atomic weapons are horrible, and it's easy to say it was bad that they were used. But when you understand the entire picture at the time you can start to see the reasoning of why that was the decision that was made.

[Easo]

With that logic, Japan was "justified" in Nanjing Massacre

You should take a look at the estimated casualty numbers that were expected if the Japanes had been forced to take whole China by conventional arms. Nationalist and Communist leader had decle declared that the country will not only NOT surrender, but that each and every citizen should fight. That kind of information should be taken into your calculations, at least in my opinion.

Or you get absolved becuse it was nucler fire insted of bayonets and bullets that did do the killing? Or is it the end justifies the means?

Iwo Jima showed that all these things were to be expected at home islands, just in much larger scale. Like actually expected.
I absolutely fail to see why Americans should have landed to die when they could just bomb the enemy. Why should they? No, really, why?

And fucking yes, the end does justify the means. Japan had to be stopped, same as with Nazi Germany. No ifs or buts.