Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings justified?

[almoststew1990]

I've been watching a lot of World War 2 documentaries and I am interested in people's opinions in this.

By 1945 the US was fighting a long drawn out war with Japan, island hopping and meeting more and more fanatical resistance from the Japanese army who thought it a great honour to die for their Emperor.

On the one hand you had US General Leary who didn't want to use the bomb - his favoured approach was to essentially blockade all of Japan and starve the country. Minimal bloodshed, but a pretty grim way to go for millions.

A lot of the US Generals and jolly important people were gearing up for Operation Downfall, which was anticipated to be a long, gruelling invasion of Japan with (I think) casualties estimated up to (or over?) a million.

After (in my opinion) substantial warnings, even tailored to convey that the Emperor would not be removed, Japan did not surrender. Little Boy which was dropped onto Hiroshima and according to Wikipedia immediately killed 80,000 people immediately and 140,000 had died by the end of 1945. There are horrific accounts of devastation on the ground with melting people crawling into the lack on top of each other and drowning as everyone was incredibly thirsty, people wandering around without much skin.

Then Fat Man was dropped onto Nagasaki, after the Japanese were given further opportunity to surrender. This killed 80,000 by the end of 1945.

Some numbers context I found interesting:

The fire bombing of Dresden by the Allies was responsible (again according to Wikipedia) for 25,000 casualties and that shocked the UK press, public and the US shied away from their involvement. Some people at the time (and now) think that it was a step too far, and had equally as horrific conditions with fire storms moving faster than running speed and creating wind powerful enough to suck people into fire coming out of doorways etc.

However, the US firebombing raid on Tokyo in 9th and 10th March 1945 killed an estimated 100,000 civilians across two nights. I hadn't heard about this raid until a documentary I watched the other day.

So anyway,

I think that the bombing was, with hindsight, the least bad option for "the world". Hitler starved the citizens of Leningrad and the Polish ghettos and it sounds worse than being eradicated in a flash of light, not to mention the casualties from the war grinding on. Would it even have been successful? Would just have many deaths been caused by starvation and continued conventional aerial bombardment?

The invasion would likely have resulted in more casualties than the nuclear bombs and extended the war by however many months, and may have caused a longer trail of destruction as fighting went from south to north.

I also think by dropping a "low power" bomb, it also showed the world the stakes at when playing with nukes. When the Cuban Missile Crisis rolled around with hydrogen bombs now at play, and everyone knew that it could, literally, be the end of the world. Not to mention the multiple "close shaves" that only weren't nuclear Armageddon due to a human or two going against orders / computer data. Would they have been so hesitant if the human cost of even a small bomb hadn't been known? Would any of us be here today?

Would the cold war have become immediately hot if no nukes had been used and were still "off the table"? and a conventional war started in Berlin?

I wonder what would have happened if Nagasaki was not bombed. Perhaps bombing an unpopulated region to show the Japanese that it wasn't just a one off... Perhaps if the Potsdam declaration and ultimatum had been clear about what would happen?

Any thoughts?

 

[stockhausen]

No message.

 

[ianh]

Yes and no. Hope that helps!

 

[almoststew1990]

Why - I am learning things!

 

[Malevolence]

Yes they were. Next question.

 

[Gerard]

Yup, the alternative was an elongated war and tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousands more deaths on both sides.

 

[StriderX]

Neither. WW2 shouldn't have occurred in the first place, though to be fair i'm not sure what effect the UK and US not joining WW1 prior to this would have had on Imperial Japan's ambitions, so maybe it's wide of the mark.

Though in the circumstances of what actually occurred, then yes, with great regret.

 

[jsmoke]

They dropped a 'low power' bomb because that's all they had at the time, they had a two bombs, a uranium one and a plutonium one I believe.

I think they played a bluff saying they had more whereas they didn't, it would have taken months to produce another, the bluff worked though, Japan surrendered.

As for were they right, who knows, it was such exceptional times that maybe they felt justified using exceptional measures.

There will be a show of strength factor involved also and even a, 'we did it first before the Russians'. Many factors at play.

 

[Rotty]

Yup, the alternative was an elongated war and tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousands more deaths on both sides.

yes, horrible way to stop even worse happening

 

[ubersonic]

A lot of the US Generals and jolly important people were gearing up for Operation Downfall, which was anticipated to be a long, gruelling invasion of Japan with (I think) casualties estimated up to (or over?) a million.

ten

ten million (combines US and Japanese forces).

Would the cold war have become immediately hot if no nukes had been used and were still "off the table"? and a conventional war started in Berlin?

Yes.

I wonder what would have happened if Nagasaki was not bombed. Perhaps bombing an unpopulated region to show the Japanese that it wasn't just a one off...

Then a third nuclear strike would have been required to force the surrender (it took two plus the Soviet invasion of non-mainland Japanese territory to swing it).

 

[Roar87]

In the context of WW2 then yes, the US and Japan were in a state of total war, there was a full scale war economy on both sides, civilians were helping the war effort so unfortunately were legitimate military targets. War is hell though, the bombings were horrendous, and nothing like that should ever happen again.

 

[^TANK^]

Without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings I genuinely believe we wouldn't have such fine Manga films like Urotsukidōji: Legend of the Overfiend and tentacle pornorgraphy. So to answer your question yes it was a necessary evil.

 

[StriderX]

There's also justification after ending WW2, that we should have just nuked Moscow when we had the chance, could have saved some time.

 

[Boycey0211]

Love nuclear history so hopefully can weigh in.

Problem is there was no bomb ready after the second, so if they had detonated it over open ground and they still hadn't surrendered there could have been no follow up.

This continued post war, the Americans looked at a policy to go to war with Russia after 1945 by using nukes to smash them into submission, only problem was the plan said it would take 20 and there were none available. By the time there were Russia had grown stronger and had their own a couple of years later.

Also Japanese resolve was pretty strong, despite the absolute hammering they were getting they wouldn't give an inch, in a toss up between an experimental bomb as yet unproven on an actual target and a million lives in the balance it was part a test and a good part hope it would force their hand

 

[almoststew1990]

[QUOTE="ubersonic, post: 33211910, member: 82639")

Then a third nuclear strike would have been required to force the surrender (it took two plus the Soviet invasion of non-mainland Japanese territory to swing it).[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah I forgot about them.

One of the earlier documentaries suggested the soviet push was even more of a factor than the bombs.

Were the bombs also dropped, to end the war quickly so that the stop Soviets didn't get much territory in Asia too?

 

[Rroff]

It was a "different era" is often trotted out in defence of things but I don't believe the full horror of it had really been appreciated until afterwards - I think justified isn't really a suitable consideration in this scenario - it was all out war.

I shudder to think how things might have gone had it not happened though - several other countries were not far behind in developing nuclear weapons we might have built up to a far more ugly and more widely devastating use of nuclear weapons after a protracted conflict involving Russia before the world moved to the level of consciousness that came about because of those bombs on Japan.

 

[Angilion]

They dropped a 'low power' bomb because that's all they had at the time, they had a two bombs, a uranium one and a plutonium one I believe.

Yes and yes.

I think they played a bluff saying they had more whereas they didn't, it would have taken months to produce another, the bluff worked though, Japan surrendered.

Not quite - they had the required components for a 3rd bomb immediately available(*). It wasn't really a bluff, since they proved they could do it. The manufacturing timescale for making more nuclear bombs was less important than the existence of nuclear bombs. Japan in 1945 wasn't going to be able to conquer the USA, so the manufacturing timescale for nuclear bombs would't have mattered.

As for were they right, who knows, it was such exceptional times that maybe they felt justified using exceptional measures.

Anticpated casualties for a non-nuclear end to the war were around 10 million. I think they were "right" in the context of a lesser of two evils. More a matter of "less wrong" than "right", in a situation where every option was wrong.

There will be a show of strength factor involved also and even a, 'we did it first before the Russians'. Many factors at play.

True. The USSR didn't have much in the way of a nuclear weapons program before the USA used nuclear bombs, but the USA didn't know that at the time.

It should be borne in mind that the two nuclear bombs killed less people than had already been killed by conventional bombing in Japan. Nuclear bombs weren't a sudden escalation from nothing to uniquely apocalyptic.

As well as the millions of people who didn't die in the conventional invasion that was averted by the use of nuclear bombs, there may well have been many more who were saved later. Nuclear bombs quickly became hundreds and then thousands of times as powerful as the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and hundreds and then thousands of times more numerous. There was a lot of conflict between nuclear-armed countries, especially the USA and the USSR, afterwards. On several occasions people got disturbingly close to launching nukes. Maybe if they weren't so brutally aware of the results of doing so they might have launched nukes. Nukes thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a set of circumstances that might have resulted in thousands of them being launched.



* The key component for the 3rd bomb later become known as "the demon core" after the second fatal accident involving it. Although it wasn't the core itself that was the cause of the problems. It was the mind-numbingly casual and risky way some researchers dealt with it and the fact that they were allowed to do so. You might find it interesting to read about its story, which is now declassified. It's startling how badly handled it was even though they had at least some idea of how dangerous it was. For example, would you even consider allowing a fail-dangerous nuclear experiment in which the single point of failure was a screwdriver being held steady at a shallow angle on a flat, smooth surface by a person? I'm not exaggerating - that's exactly what was done. The screwdriver slipped. The nearest person died of radiation sickness and several others were exposed to extremely unsafe levels of radiation. Thankfully the person carrying out the experiment was quick-thinking and brave as well as foolish - they manually reversed the problem immediately, quickly enough to prevent any serious risk to anyone outside the room. Running away wouldn't have saved them at that point, but it would have been understandable.

 

[Twinz]

There was an episode of the original Star Trek where the Captain Kirk encountered a planet where two major populations had made war so "civil" and "clean" that they had no real interest in stopping it.

Both sides agreed on a simulated bombing system where one side would push a button to attack a location and all the people in that location would have to report to be euthanized. No fallout, no mass destruction, just simple "clean" warfare....that neither side was willing to end. -Until Kirk destroyed the simulator and they were faced with the prospect of a real war. Then they sued for peace and ended the war.

I understand that real world events can't be wrapped up with a nice little bow the way a sci-fi series can do it, but I do think the more we try to sanitize war, the less motivation there is to avoid/end it.

 

[Rroff]

As well as the millions of people who didn't die in the conventional invasion that was averted by the use of nuclear bombs, there may well have been many more who were saved later. Nuclear bombs quickly became hundreds and then thousands of times as powerful as the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and hundreds and then thousands of times more numerous. There was a lot of conflict between nuclear-armed countries, especially the USA and the USSR, afterwards. On several occasions people got disturbingly close to launching nukes. Maybe if they weren't so brutally aware of the results of doing so they might have launched nukes. Nukes thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a set of circumstances that might have resulted in thousands of them being launched.

It could be argued the nuclear arms race was a consequence of those bombs on Japan - but into the 40s the significance of them as weapons was becoming more and more established and it was likely a significant degree of stockpiling and development would have gone on anyway.

 

[jsmoke]

Yes and yes.



Not quite - they had the required components for a 3rd bomb immediately available(*). It wasn't really a bluff, since they proved they could do it. The manufacturing timescale for making more nuclear bombs was less important than the existence of nuclear bombs. Japan in 1945 wasn't going to be able to conquer the USA, so the manufacturing timescale for nuclear bombs would't have mattered.



Anticpated casualties for a non-nuclear end to the war were around 10 million. I think they were "right" in the context of a lesser of two evils. More a matter of "less wrong" than "right", in a situation where every option was wrong.



True. The USSR didn't have much in the way of a nuclear weapons program before the USA used nuclear bombs, but the USA didn't know that at the time.

It should be borne in mind that the two nuclear bombs killed less people than had already been killed by conventional bombing in Japan. Nuclear bombs weren't a sudden escalation from nothing to uniquely apocalyptic.

As well as the millions of people who didn't die in the conventional invasion that was averted by the use of nuclear bombs, there may well have been many more who were saved later. Nuclear bombs quickly became hundreds and then thousands of times as powerful as the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and hundreds and then thousands of times more numerous. There was a lot of conflict between nuclear-armed countries, especially the USA and the USSR, afterwards. On several occasions people got disturbingly close to launching nukes. Maybe if they weren't so brutally aware of the results of doing so they might have launched nukes. Nukes thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a set of circumstances that might have resulted in thousands of them being launched.



* The key component for the 3rd bomb later become known as "the demon core" after the second fatal accident involving it. Although it wasn't the core itself that was the cause of the problems. It was the mind-numbingly casual and risky way some researchers dealt with it and the fact that they were allowed to do so. You might find it interesting to read about its story, which is now declassified. It's startling how badly handled it was even though they had at least some idea of how dangerous it was. For example, would you even consider allowing a fail-dangerous nuclear experiment in which the single point of failure was a screwdriver being held steady at a shallow angle on a flat, smooth surface by a person? I'm not exaggerating - that's exactly what was done. The screwdriver slipped. The nearest person died of radiation sickness and several others were exposed to extremely unsafe levels of radiation. Thankfully the person carrying out the experiment was quick-thinking and brave as well as foolish - they manually reversed the problem immediately, quickly enough to prevent any serious risk to anyone outside the room. Running away wouldn't have saved them at that point, but it would have been understandable.

I often wondered how they did the safety setup during the Manhattan project. Am I'm reading now that they developed a process they called 'tickling the devils tail' where they would manually place increasing amounts of neutron reflective material around the uranium, or plutonium, core while scintillation counters would display the radiation activity, they were basically playing 'chicken' with the bomb core seeing how much neutron reflective material it needed close to the core to reach criticality.

Sadly two scientists died when the core emitted a burst of radiation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core