Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings justified?

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
8,332
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.)

i was watching a video recently about the chap who survived both bombings, apparently he had returned to work in nagasaki and was trying to explain to his boss about a bomb that destroyed a city, his boss didn't beleive him, although not for long.

i still hold that it was necessary, they were (by modern standards) quite low yeild bombs and as horrific as the loss of life during and after was it's probably better that it happened so early in our history of nuclear development, before we'd really got the hang of manufacturing armageddon.

nuclear bombs are a dirty phrase in our dictionary because we've seen first hand how devastating they can be, if we hadn't had that experience the phrase wouldn't have been as dirty and perhaps the MAD policies of the cold war wouldn't have been quite so effective, if it hadn't been japan in ww2 then maybe it would have been china during the korean war, or the us fleet during the cuban missile crisis, or some other event.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jan 2008
Posts
1,326
Location
Cotswolds
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.....

Why not?

The Japanese were fanatics and, about to surrender or not, they believed that a deity was running their country and I suspect the potential "surrender" was only a ruse. In reality, they wouldn't have stopped without significant intervention = nuke. Yes it's terrible that it was used, but it's history now and thankfully it was the first of the nuclear bombs. Imagine if a modern one was deployed today...

Also, look up Japanese war atrocities against China and Allied powers from 1937...they're not (weren't at least) stand up people...
 
Permabanned
Joined
25 Jan 2013
Posts
4,277
Short answer: no. Long answer: also no, but in more detail (see below).

Let's review the situation in August 1945, just before Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped:

* Japan's navy and air force have both been destroyed
* Japan has no capacity to project military power beyond her borders
* Japan is blockaded
* Japan's supply lines are completely cut off
* Japan has run out of resources
* Japan has run out of money
* Japan's allies have been defeated
* Japan has lost all the territory she captured during the war
* Japan's air defences have been completely wiped out; she has no way to defend herself against air raids
* Japan has suffered 20 months of bombing by the Americans, who dropped 157,000 tons of bombs during that time
* Tokyo has been decimated by a massive firebomb run, which killed 100,000 and made 1 million homeless in a single night (the most destructive bombing raid in human history)

In short: Japan is utterly defeated. Invasion is unnecessary; the Allies can simply wait for her surrender. They have all the time in the world. Japan is no longer a threat. The only thing required at this point is to negotiate terms.

Now let's wind the clock back a little further.

In mid July, Japan approached the Russians with an offer of surrender, and a request for the Russian government to act as mediator.

The Soviets did not mention this to the Allies, and stalled the Japanese while continuing to build up troops in Manchuria. Their goal was to invade Hokkaido and take over Japan before the Allies could intervene. This plan was devised by Admiral Ivan Yumashev, and you can read it here. Soviet submarines were already in place, and the Russians expected to commence operations on the 24th of August.

The Russians would have got away with the invasion a few months earlier, when the US War Department conceded that it could be wise to let the Soviets occupy Hokkaido and part of Honshu.

But by August, the atom bombs were ready, and Truman knew the Russians could not stop him. Deeply concerned by the implications of Soviet dominance in the region, he decided the bombs would serve as an appropriate warning about what could happen if the USA's geopolitical goals were thwarted. Some historians now believe this was a miscalculation:



(Source).

Truman sent a message to Stalin, insisting that the US must retain air base rights on some of the central islands, and that a partial Soviet occupation would be permitted at the discretion of MacArthur (you can read it here).

Stalin deliberated until the 22nd of August (just two days before the planned invasion) when he cancelled the Yumashev operation via a message relayed by Marshall Aleksandr Vasilevsky (you can read it here).

I have provided this backstory to prove a critical point: the Russians had already assessed Japan's capacity for resistance, and deemed it inadequate. Stalin was satisfied that the Russians could invade successfully, without unacceptable losses on either side. Stalin's view was also held by most US military officials at the time, a fact that did not emerge publicly until after the war was over.

In short, the Soviets and the American high command both knew:

* Japan was beaten
* Japan was prepared to surrender
* Invasion was unnecessary
* Invasion was nevertheless a viable option

This flatly refutes the claims initially presented by America as justification for dropping the atom bombs.

To this day, you will hear nonsense about the 'need' to invade; that invasion would have resulted in cataclysmic losses; that the bombs were a humane alternative which prevented huge loss of life, and ended a war that could not otherwise have been stopped.

None of this is true.

Finally, we have the testimony of US government officials and military personnel.















Norman Cousins was consultant to MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan:



John McCloy was Assistant Secretary of War:



Ralph Baird was Under Secretary of the Navy:



Lewis Strauss was Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:



Paul Nitze was Vice Chairman of the US Strategic Bombing Survey:





Leo Szilard was the nuclear scientist responsible for the technology behind the atom bomb:



Elias Zecharias was Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence:







Examples could be multiplied. The bottom line is that all of the top US military leaders involved in the dropping of the atom bombs subsequently stated that the bombs were unnecessary from a military perspective.

Even the lunatics at the Mises Institute are smart enough to know this.

Great post! Just finished Anthony Beavers Second World War and unfortunately (even despite it's length) certain things like this it has to skip over or at least not devote a great deal of pages covering.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2009
Posts
7,728
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.

Then you understand wrong and you fail to comprehend the mentality of the Japanese imperial mindset of the time, japanese were conditioned to to not surrender at any cost the samurai tradition they harkened to preferred death to dishonour and surrender was most definitely seen as dishonour part of the reason british troops who surrended at Singapore etc were treated so badly in POW camps were because they were seen as being thoroughly dishonorable for not having fought to the last man. Japan was well aware it was losing the war but nevertheless had plans to defend every inch of soil to every last man, woman and child should troops attempt a landing on japanese soil hence the decision for the bomb.

There are no good answers to any of this, just less bad ones.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2019
Posts
3,028
Location
SW Florida
I read a lot about the battle for Iwo Jima. We took the island quickly but the Japanese kept fight long after they were "already defeated" and we lost a lot of people to the "defeated" enemy on that island alone.

They were a formidable enemy that demonstrated a willingness to fight to the last if ordered to so and be effective fighters. I don't think "already defeated" gives the Japanese the respect they earned in the battles leading up to the mainland.
 
Caporegime
Joined
11 Jul 2009
Posts
27,049
Location
BenefitStreetBirmingham
They were given opportunities to surrender on a number of occasions in which they refused so yes the (bomb) was justified imo

Surrender is shamed upon in japanese culture,who were loyal to their emperor,maybe this was lost in translation to western culture but they surrendered anyway so I dont know why they just didnt surrender at the first chance,many lives would have been saved
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
They were given opportunities to surrender on a number of occasions in which they refused so yes the (bomb) was justified imo

Surrender is shamed upon in japanese culture,who were loyal to their emperor,maybe this was lost in translation to western culture but they surrendered anyway so I dont know why they just didnt surrender at the first chance,many lives would have been saved

Ever seen the Jim Jones cult?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,742
Was it not Hirohito that desired the war to end rather a lot earlier than the government desired and was it not that the immense pressure from the military that meant the government had to side with them ultimately?

I'm pretty sure that was the case wasn't it?
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
I read a lot about the battle for Iwo Jima. We took the island quickly but the Japanese kept fight long after they were "already defeated" and we lost a lot of people to the "defeated" enemy on that island alone.

They were a formidable enemy that demonstrated a willingness to fight to the last if ordered to so and be effective fighters. I don't think "already defeated" gives the Japanese the respect they earned in the battles leading up to the mainland.

Most people fail to understand that it is the vanquished that decide that the battle or war is over, not the victor.

You haven't Won until the enemy has accepted that they have lost (Either that, or the enemy has been utterly annihilated, which IS how battles were frequently fought in the classical era)
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
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.....

But words aren't the worst thing in the world. Nor is "nuclear bomb" the worst words in the dictionary. Off the top of my head, words like "genocide", "biological weapons", "holocaust" and suchlike come to mind. Maybe "unit 731", considering the context. They killed far more people than the nuclear bombs did and in far more sadistic ways.

Also, why is killing people with a nuclear bomb so much worse than killing a comparable number of people with chemical bombs? The biggest death toll from a single bombing run was in Tokyo, not Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,149
Location
Cambridge
A compelling argument used by various historians (e.g. Richard Overy, Robin Neillands) is that WW2 was a Total War; nothing was really held back on either side. The Japanese certainly didn't hold back from Kamikaze attacks. Surely the best thing was to get the whole damn thing over with as swiftly as possible, with the minimum of total casualties, especially to 'your' side?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,823
i was watching a video recently about the chap who survived both bombings, apparently he had returned to work in nagasaki and was trying to explain to his boss about a bomb that destroyed a city, his boss didn't beleive him, although not for long.

i still hold that it was necessary, they were (by modern standards) quite low yeild bombs and as horrific as the loss of life during and after was it's probably better that it happened so early in our history of nuclear development, before we'd really got the hang of manufacturing armageddon.

nuclear bombs are a dirty phrase in our dictionary because we've seen first hand how devastating they can be, if we hadn't had that experience the phrase wouldn't have been as dirty and perhaps the MAD policies of the cold war wouldn't have been quite so effective, if it hadn't been japan in ww2 then maybe it would have been china during the korean war, or the us fleet during the cuban missile crisis, or some other event.

As much as I hate the excuse of "it was a different era" the last bit I think a lot of people are going to struggle with in this thread - even at a science or military level there wasn't a consciousness of nuclear bombs like there is today. Also something that concerns me with regard to North Korea as generally they have been so isolated their mentality, even much of the leadership, towards it is much more pre-1940 than contemporary with the rest of the world - whereas even in places like Iran there is much more consciousness of the consequences and bigger picture.

A compelling argument used by various historians (e.g. Richard Overy, Robin Neillands) is that WW2 was a Total War; nothing was really held back on either side. The Japanese certainly didn't hold back from Kamikaze attacks. Surely the best thing was to get the whole damn thing over with as swiftly as possible, with the minimum of total casualties, especially to 'your' side?

There is an awful amount of revisioning of events by those with an anti-nuclear agenda - while the war might have been approaching its end some of the costliest battles were still relatively recent to the first nuclear bomb being used with more such battles to come - the Japanese backbone might have been breaking but no one really knew what the weeks and months ahead would bring - they might not have been capable of a come back of their own to threaten the US but they were far from a spent force (see for instance the use of Japanese troops in the Vietnam war) and could have been an effective resource for the likes of Russia if Russia had other ideas about how WW2 would end :s
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Apr 2013
Posts
4,095
A far more interesting thread would surely be: Were the world trade centre bombings justified, was the UNABOMBER onto something, did Al Qaeda have the moral right to smash planes into WTC?
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
10,042
Location
Europe
They were given opportunities to surrender on a number of occasions in which they refused so yes the (bomb) was justified imo

Surrender is shamed upon in japanese culture,who were loyal to their emperor,maybe this was lost in translation to western culture but they surrendered anyway so I dont know why they just didnt surrender at the first chance,many lives would have been saved

I wonder if the Allies could have approached it differently. And and said to the Japanese that 'they recognise that they are a formidable opponent, and wish to negotiate terms to end the war.' That way it wouldn't have been a Japanese surrender, and the powers that be in Japan could put an end to the war without losing face.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
I wonder if the Allies could have approached it differently. And and said to the Japanese that 'they recognise that they are a formidable opponent, and wish to negotiate terms to end the war.' That way it wouldn't have been a Japanese surrender, and the powers that be in Japan could put an end to the war without losing face.

Yeah, say to them,

'Dear Japan

We're really sorry for invading your country and killing millions of your people even though you did start it! :). We have a big bomb btw, but we won't use it if you surrender. We await your reply. God speed!

PS: It's a really big bomb ;)'

--Just realised I'm sounding like Trump.
 
Caporegime
Joined
11 Jul 2009
Posts
27,049
Location
BenefitStreetBirmingham
The brutal truth is,is that it worked

They surrendered and no other nuclear bomb has been used in a war since,cold war era followed and nuclear bombs are now only in place as a deterrent

Edit:

Usa...look were gonna drop this bomb on you if you don't surrender

Japan.....nope

Usa....look were gonna drop this bomb on you if you don't surrender and we mean it!!...

Japan.....nope

Usa....drops bomb,then another

Japan....ok we surrender:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Posts
3,401
Yes they were justified as the other option was a prolonged war with untold numbers dead due to Japanese mentality of "no surrender" it's worth noting it took 2 nuclear bombs to get them to surrender, not one, which pretty much says it all about their mindset at the time considering the destructive power witnessed from the first bomb

Even then there were some in the leadership seeking to overthrow the Emperor to continue fighting.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
Any thoughts?
On "Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings justified" the answer is NO.

Japan had already lost, they had no fleet, no airforce and what ever infantry left was still in China. Fuel was hard to come by also.
Using nukes to kill civilian population equals to the most heinous war crime similar to the gas chambers of Nazi Germany and the British bombing of Dresden.
None was justified and were acts of pure evil no different than a genocide.

Similarly to the idea of mutual destruction ideology that lead to amassing nukes in numbers enough to destroy the whole planet several times over.
There is no justification and there will ever be on the usage of nuclear weapons. Anyone says otherwise is a deluded moron that needs to be locked in a psychiatric clinic, including politicians and everyone else.

History of mankind is about war. And as civilization we have been to war with each other constantly since the the dawn of time. Wars won and lost. Civilization and humanity moved on for both winners and losers. Countries and ethnicities disappeared and new created of the mixture between different nationals. "English nationality", is an amalgamation of indigenous Celts, conquered by Romans for 400 years, then Germans Anglo-Saxons who invaded the island, few Norse & Danes at the north (Vikings) and French speaking Normans (with roots to Scandinavia) added in the mix after 1066.

But at no point in history, morons were so determined that from losing a war, is better everyone should die including it's own population. Not even the hardcore Nazis had this thought in their heads.
 
Back
Top Bottom