Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings justified?

[Sankari]

@Evangelion that post is far too sensible for GD, get out

I enjoyed reading it, thanks.

My pleasure.

Of course the next interesting question that links to the growing Russian problem and potential invasion - should the West have invaded Russia, after all, Churchill wanted to?

Absolutely not.

I recommend the following books for information on WWII and the Cold War era:

* The Cold War: A New History (John Lewis Gaddis, 2006)
* The War of the World: History's Age of Hatred (Niall Ferguson, 2006)

For an Australian perspective on WWII:

* A ******* of a Place: The Australians in Papua (Peter Brune, 2003)
* The Strength of a Nation (Michael McKernan, 20061)

 

[PermaChanged]

General Carl Spaatz said:
If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms.

On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time.

This is probably the most compelling rationale as to why surrender would have occurred, without the need to use any nuclear weapons.

 

[Efour]

Yes because it avoided home island invasion and those Japs were feisty buggers.

 

[Arcane]

OP, two really good books on the subject are "Hiroshima" by John Harvey and "The making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes. The latter is very tech heavy but an idiot like myself just about scraped through it.

 

[Orionaut]

Yes because it avoided home island invasion and those Japs were feisty buggers.

I think the US was extremely reluctant to invade not so much because of the heavy Japanese casualties that would have occurred, Not even because of the US physical casualties either.

But because such an invasion would have mentally destroyed a generation of US servicemen.

A mainland invasion would have resulted ultimately in US soldiers having to shoot women and children who would have fought to the death with whatever they had to hand (Eg; bamboo spears) in very large numbers, possibly even in the millions

The PTSDesqe consequences of having to fight a battle in this way are pretty much beyond comprehension. Nam was utterly trivial by comparison as to what might have been!

 

[Greboth]

It is an incredibly difficult thing to come down firmly on the yes or no side of things. Hindsight can help especially as there is more information available - some of that information is only available because they did drop the bombs. On balance, looking at things from a time of (relative) peace I think I would have to side with no, they weren't justified. There is too much evidence that Japan would have surrendered without the need for the bombs.

However, to consider if they were justified, based on the information at the time, the situation America was in and the end of the war in Europe and Russia / USSR etc. Dropping the bombs was a horrific thing to do but war is horrific and it wasn't any more or less horrific than other acts carried out during the war. That doesn't excuse dropping the bombs but I have wondered if they are put under so much scrutiny due to the level of instant death and destruction. Sticking with Japan, was dropping the bombs actually worse than the fire bombings? in a sad reality, the answer is no. So to try and consider the question in context at the time, which is a far more difficult question to answer, I'd say yes that bombings were justified.

 

[ianh]

Scholars were today rocked by recent views shared on a computer forum which indicated strongly that matters involving tens of millions of lives and innumerable and unknowable options and outcomes could not be reduced to a simple and simplistic yes/no answer. After careful deliberation and perhaps an unintended and open view of the matter, popular forums poster ianh said, "yes and no". More as it happens ...

I consider my statement to be the accurate TL:DR to a much wider, longer and ultimately more in-depth set of answers that will be written here by people far more willing to give their time basically saying the same thing.

 

[Efour]

Also it's like playing civ 6. If you spend the time to research and build a couple of nukes, you damn well are gonna use them.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Justified? Yes.

Necessary? Less clear.

There were alternatives such as encircling the Japanese and starving them into submission, but it's impossible to say whether they would have done so quick enough to save any lives. And if they had surrendered without the shock of the Hiroshima, would they have done so without condition?

An invasion of the home islands would almost certainly have seen a death toll higher than the nuclear bombings, so that doesn't seem like a better option.

An offer of a conditional surrender might have worked, but it may have just led to another conflict down the line.

 

[adolf hamster]

Also it's like playing civ 6. If you spend the time to research and build a couple of nukes, you damn well are gonna use them.

The problem with civ is no matter how peaceful everyone is the whole game the moment that manhattan project gets done then you know its gonna descend into chaos

 

[snips86x]

Not sure it was necessary but those 2 sites did in fact have 'slaves' making arms for the Japanese army. It was a decisive blow to bring it to and end. The loss of life is still harrowing though.

 

[Freddie1980]

The fire bombings on Toyko in March 1945 killed just as many if not more but it's hardly ever spoken about. I personally think the Atom bombs that were dropped were justified at the time, had the Germans or Japanese had this technology and a method of deploying it I'm confident they would have done. How many would have died had the allies invaded the home islands?

 

[jsmoke]

Could be good for tourism for both Nagasaki and Hiroshima though.

 

[SPG]

It was my understanding Japan was about to surrender before the BOMB was dropped.

This is nothing but a shame on the USA and a WAR crime IMO.

 

[Twinz]

It was my understanding Japan was about to surrender before the BOMB was dropped.

This is nothing but a shame on the USA and a WAR crime IMO.

They were flying planes into our ships when they new they couldn't win a battle.

Desperate? Sure.

Getting ready to surrender? Didn't look that way at the time.

 

[PermaChanged]

Japan was about to surrender .... a WAR crime IMO.

Think that's reaching a bit. They hadn't surrendered therefore I feel use of force was still justified. Perhaps it was a bit excessive, but I couldn't consider it a war crime.

 

[SPG]

They were flying planes into our ships when they new they couldn't win a battle.

Desperate? Sure.

Getting ready to surrender? Didn't look that way at the time.

Of course it was, they had nowhere else to go, no aircraft, no munitions, no supply base. The end was weeks away not months or years. Either way nuclear weapons was not justified.

 

[Twinz]

I think people who point out how Japan was suffering major losses before the bombs were dropped are conveniently ignoring the fact that, even with mounting losses, they were STILL NOT SURRENDERING.
Heck, you can add the first nuke to the list of massive losses Japan was willing to endure without surrendering.

At the time, it was apparent that the Japanese required more convincing. We kept increasing pressure until said pressure was sufficient to force a full surrender. And it took everything we had. (We were out of nukes.)

 

[Twinz]

Of course it was, they had nowhere else to go, no aircraft, no munitions, no supply base. The end was weeks away not months or years. Either way nuclear weapons was not justified.

They didn't even surrender after the first nuke. Think about that.

They took a nuke...and still did not surrender. Saying surrender was "about to happen" only seems reasonable if you totally ignore all the things that failed to cause Japan to surrender leading up to the one thing that did....that being the SECOND nuke.

 

[SPG]

Irrelevant, read a book called Deadline, it may change your opinion on the entire subject.

Either way it is still not justifiable, its a nuclear BOMB, The worst words in the dictionary.....