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

[Dadwen]

And yet I've never seen the argument of why 2 cities had to be nuked and not just one if you wanted a quick end to the war.

I don't think anyone here had a horse in the race, but I think the people at the time were tired of it and loss of over 400,000 thousands US lives and just wanted it over, for them it was very much Justified.

[Breccia]

I've already answered this one.

When we made the decision to drop the bombs, we were facing a mindset that was completely alien to us. Everything from the hierarchy of the Japanese people to their honorable, in some cases fanatical, devotion to the words of their divine emperor. We were facing an enemy who had ordered its own civilians to commit suicide, rather than be captured by the Americans. Who had specially made planes and trained pilots for suicide missions (see also: tsurugi). Who had tortured and murdered prisoners of war (see also: Bataan Death March). Who tested biological weapons, chemical weapons, and vivisection on captured civilians (see also: Unit 731). Who had demonstrated, time and time again, that they would fight down to the last man. We were horrified by this extreme case of culture shock.

We didn't know that the Japanese had long since started working on their own nuclear weapons, but had stopped the process by the personal demand of the emperor, who feared how these weapons could destroy the human race. We didn't know that the Russians were going to declare war August 9th, crushing the Japanese between three unbreakable forces, a declaration that might have been emboldened because of the bombs being dropped. We didn't know the high-ranking members of the Japanese government, such as Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe and Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal Kōichi Kido had publicly asked for the war to end, before the empire was destroyed or a coup took over the government. And we did not know that, on June 22nd, the emperor himself had ordered his ministers to create and enact a plan to end the war.

We didn't know. How could we?

So we ordered what is arguably the most horrifying act of war of all time, in an attempt to demonstrate to even the most devoted, the most zealous of soldiers, that they were facing a force they could not possibly hope to defeat. We ordered the incineration of tens of thousands of people, with the side-effect of poisoning hundreds of thousands more, many of them civilians, to prove a point: that victory was impossible. To make them give up.

Incidentally, it almost didn't work. Shortly after the emperor unconditionally surrendered, there was an attempted overthrow of the government by the military hard-liners who still did not wish to surrender (see also: Kyujo Incident). Even in the face of the most dangerous weapon made by man, some of them still wanted to keep fighting. That was what had been the problem all along: a military mindset we just couldn't understand.

And that's why we did it. At the time, our countries military and political leaders saw themselves facing a foe they saw as brutal, murdering monsters, determined to fight to the death, every last one. It was not a decision they made lightly, or one they lived with comfortably, but they made it thinking this was the case. They were wrong. They just didn't know.

May God have mercy on the souls of anyone involved on either side of this single defining moment of the human race.

"It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."
-- Emperor Hirohito, 1975

Basically, we know now that it wasn't justified. We didn't know that at the time.

[ati87]

I don't think anyone here had a horse in the race, but I think the people at the time were tired of it and lose of over 400,000 thousands US lives and just wanted it over, for them it was very much Justified.

And yet you didn't really answer my question.
What was the point of a 2e nuke? Again, a single nuke kind of made the message clear when it came to the difference of power didn't it?

[Dadwen]

And yet you didn't really answer my question.
What was the point of a 2e nuke? Again, a single nuke kind of made the message clear when it came to the difference of power didn't it?

They could have just surrendered right away, what was the point in still fighting?

[Breccia]

And yet I've never seen the argument of why 2 cities had to be nuked and not just one if you wanted a quick end to the war.

I have. But I won't pretend it's an argument you'll accept.

The idea basically was, if you drop one bomb and stop, your enemy might assume that was your only one.

If you drop two in rapid succession, you're sending the message "I can do this all day".

We dropped two, basically, to give the false impression that the Japanese had two choices: they could watch as we incinerated city after city, taking thousands of civilian lives over and over until their entire country was a smoldering lifeless pile of ashes...or they could surrender.

There's a mindset I sadly believe most countries have when it comes to war. "If the cause is just, we must fight...until it hits us where we live". Soldiers sign up to fight and die. Civilians don't. Sending a bomber over the ocean, with a list of targets in prioritized order, to incinerate civilians who likely never picked up a gun just to make a terrifying point might easily be described as Lawful Evil...but the war did end, possibly saving more lives than it cost.

We're going to have to live with "possibly". And hope that the men and women today with nuclear capabilities learn an important lesson from those who had it in the past.

[Dadwen]

What Did Harry S Truman Have to Say About His Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb?

At the time, the president seemed conflicted over his decision. The day after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, Truman received a telegram from Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, encouraging the president to use as many atomic bombs as possible on Japan, claiming the American people believed “that we should continue to strike the Japanese until they are brought groveling to their knees.” Truman responded, “I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in that same manner. For myself I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the ‘pigheadedness’ of the leaders of a nation, and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless absolutely necessary.”

On August 9, the day the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, Truman received a telegram from Samuel McCrea Cavert, a Protestant clergyman, who pleaded with the president to stop the bombing “before any further devastation by atomic bomb is visited upon her [Japan’s] people.” Two days later, Truman replied, “The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.”

Looking back, President Truman never shirked personal responsibility for his decision, but neither did he apologize. He asserted that he would not use the bomb in later conflicts, such as Korea. Nevertheless, given the same circumstances and choices that confronted him in Japan in 1945, he said he would do exactly the same thing.

It was heavy burden to bear. Speaking of himself as president, Truman said, “And he alone, in all the world, must say Yes or No to that awesome, ultimate question, ‘Shall we drop the bomb on a living target?’” Every president since Harry Truman has had that power. None has exercised it.

also this segment sticks out
A 21-year-old American second lieutenant recalled, “When the bombs dropped and news began to circulate that [the invasion of Japan] would not, after all, take place, that we would not be obliged to run up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being mortared and shelled, for all the fake manliness of our facades we cried with relief and joy. We were going to live. We were going to grow up to adulthood after all.”

[Mihalik]

It was absolutely NOT justified. If they had been used against military targets, with clear intent to minimize civilian casualties, then I could see it. Using them against major cities, with the intent being to kill as many civilians as possible, should have been considered a war crime.

One of the reasons why World War 2 was as horrible as it was, was because every side involved has read waaaaay too much Clausewitz and has fully interiorized the concept of total war and the legitimacy of targeting civilian infrastructure to hinder the ability of their enemy to wage war. Even civilian morale was considered by all sides to be a legitimate target.

Within the moral framework of the time...it wasn't a particularly vicious or malicious act. Very similar effects have been achieved through the use of more conventional weapons such fire bombs.

[Thee ANCOM]

That fire bombing was the single most deadly air raid in WW2 greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

fire bombs don't leave behind radiation. also the jappanese government was on the brink of giving up, they knew the fighting was only going to get worse the longer they fought. the nukes were an unnecessary final nail in that coffin.

[Specialka]

fire bombs don't leave behind radiation. also the jappanese government was on the brink of giving up, they knew the fighting was only going to get worse the longer they fought. the nukes were an unnecessary final nail in that coffin.

Those nukes were a warning to the world and to the USSR.

[Xeones]

Those bombs ensured an unconditional surrender. Without those bombs how would history have been different if the Emperor of Japan was not stripped of power and the nation had not given up their right to war? The bombs also prevented the imminent invasion of the USSR into Japan.

When speaking in hind sight it's hard to evaluate whether it was the best choice or not when you don't know how other timelines would have ended up.

[Themius]

fire bombs don't leave behind radiation. also the jappanese government was on the brink of giving up, they knew the fighting was only going to get worse the longer they fought. the nukes were an unnecessary final nail in that coffin.

They did not surrender after Hiroshima, there were major issues within japan's own government resistant to surrender. Though I feel that if we waited it could have gone better, though then one has to wonder how things would have played out with Russia.

[Thee ANCOM]

Those nukes were a warning to the world and to the USSR.

as if the Russians had no idea what nukes do? you realize they did their own tests, right?

- - - Updated - - -

They did not surrender after Hiroshima, there were major issues within japan's own government resistant to surrender. Though I feel that if we waited it could have gone better, though then one has to wonder how things would have played out with Russia.

same answer as above.

[Themius]

as if the Russians had no idea what nukes do? you realize they did their own tests, right?

- - - Updated - - -



same answer as above.

Right, so not necessary to end the war, the question I have is how would have things played out if we went the longer route after Russia began a proper invasion. Would the Hokkaido region be like NK today?

[Specialka]

as if the Russians had no idea what nukes do? you realize they did their own tests, right?

- - - Updated - - -



same answer as above.

And the USA showed them they could use in warfare.

[Easo]

This topic again, urgh...
Justified. Absolutely justified. I am so tired of repeating it.
P.S.
Russian nuke tests? In 1945? See people, this thread perfectly shows that oh so fucking many have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to atomic bombings. In 1945 USSR had nothing more than a theoretical knowledge of how a nuke could work, not any finer details. Eastern Front, after all, had many other priorities instead of spending resources on a bomb which may or may not work as intended...

[Thee ANCOM]

And the USA showed them they could use in warfare.

which gave the Russians a reason to make their own, and thus one of the greatest threats to our existence came about because according to you the US needed to swing it's dick around.

[Santti]

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.

That's pretty much true for me as well.

I also remember reading that there were various options, like an invasion, but it was estimated there would be more casualties this way, on both sides. Russia was also looking for some action, and that would have turned into a real mess, so there was not much time. So the nukes were chosen.

But as you said, I kinda question that now.

[kail]

Can't accurately answer without visiting a timeline where we didn't bomb the two cities.

[Specialka]

which gave the Russians a reason to make their own, and thus one of the greatest threats to our existence came about because according to you the US needed to swing it's dick around.

The USSR were already on their way to make one. And Geopolitics is a dick swinging contest anyway. The world is not a kindergarden.

[gaymer77]

And yet you didn't really answer my question.
What was the point of a 2e nuke? Again, a single nuke kind of made the message clear when it came to the difference of power didn't it?

Japanese officials tried to pass off the first bomb at Hiroshima as being a natural disaster to prevent the Japanese from being scared of the Americans but hours after the bomb dropped on Nagasaki the Japanese minister of war told his cabinet that "the Americans appear to have 100 atomic bombs and could drop three per day" which brought about the surrender of Japan. The first bomb could be covered up but the second bomb could not especially when the Japanese assumed the US could/would have that many bombs so quickly to blanket Japan into submission. As it was, General Leslie R. Groves was pushing lab in Los Alamos to be able to build 1 bomb every 10 days and they fulfilled his demands with the 2 bombs and more were not needed. There were a total of 4 Japanese cities that were up for bomb droppings. Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigat. Initially Kyoto was on the list but Groves argued of the historical and religious history Kyoto had to the Japanese people and how dropping a bomb on it would be unforgivable by the Japanese so Nagasaki took its place on the list.