Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

[Neil]

Personally I think the use of nuclear weapons were necessary to make Japan surrender. What I question are the targets, and the speed of the second bomb after the first.

I've never understood why civilian targets were chosen, and why such heavily populated areas?

Anyone else have a view/opinion?


I've always had a view that the US military half used the opportunity as an experiment to see what the effects of such weapons were.



ps: What a lot of people don't know is the second target should have been Kokura, but poor weather meant the secondary target of Nagasaki was hit. Infact Kokura had been the secondary target for Hiroshima, so in effect it survived nuclear obliteration twice!

[EvilNed]

I'll write a more extensive answer when I get home,

but yes I believe the dropping of Bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified... But only barely. There are a lot of things to take into consideration. It's not a black-and-white issue. It's not a simple question to answer. And it's not gonna be a "Yes" or "No" answer. The answer is always going to be "Most likely, but we'll never know for sure".

The alternatives would have been a land invasion or besieging the island of Japan. However, the latter option needed the cooperation of the Soviets, who were showing every intention of invading and probably would have within a month of Japan's surrender, had they not surrendered when they did.

We couldn't know it at the time, but the prospect of a Soviet and US invasion on japanese soil would have been much more devastating for the japanese people than the two a-bombs dropped on them.

Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted, I believe that Japan proclaimed itself to be in a state of total war... Which means there are no civilian targets. Sad truth.

[Neil]

Well for example, why not drop the first bomb NEAR a populated area, but not ON a populated area? ie: Were X hundred thousand civilian deaths necessary really?

[Danny]

Well for example, why not drop the first bomb NEAR a populated area, but not ON a populated area? ie: Were X hundred thousand civilian deaths necessary really?

Shock and Awe.

A goddamn evil act regardless of being "the goodies" that was so shocking it made the entire world stop and go "okay this war has gone too far". The bombing was a horrid act, theres no real situation where you can justify atomising an entire city in nuclear fire let alone two. That said you cant argue that in the long run it was better for the world to have happened. russia never made a land grab on japanese soil, they opened themselves to the west and became far less isolationist and went onto becoming a major technological developer and it ended a bloody conflict that could have gone on much longer and taken many more lives. But that doesnt mean the act itself wasnt fucking horrid. It might lack the personal nature of the kamikaze. But imagine being a 5 year old kid in hiroshima, getting ready for school then seeing the bomber fly over head.

Did he deserve it?

[shootemindehead]

You were watching 'Question Time' last night, weren't you? :)

Um...This is a subject that I have had many conversations about over the years and I have yet to see an argument that convinces me that they were either justified, or necessary.

By the time the bombs were dropped on these cities, Japan was absolutely finished. She was completely blockaded and nothing was getting in or out of the country. Suzuki's government were actually looking out for a way to surrender and end the war and apart from Army Minister Korechika Anami, the entire cabinet had commited to a "peace party". Even Anami's objection was because he feared what the allies would do to the Emperor upon surrender and was for prolonging the war, until a clarification could be sought regarding the fate of Hirohito.

The Allies, however, made no attempt to clarify their position on the Emperor, after a Japanese surrender and thus, the Japanese were kept in the dark. The Allies had no intention of removing the Japanese Emperor, yet remained silent on that point.

The Americans had also been reading Japanese codes for years before the first bomb was dropped and knew full well the position of the Japanese government. They knew what they were holding out for and they were aware that the Japanese were putting in place measures for a peaceful surrender, via Russia. This had all been read as part of the Purple decrypts, yet all the Allies would say to Japan was that they insisted on "unconditional Surrender", despite the fact that their own conditions coincided with the Japanese positon on their Sovereign. Had this been made known to the Japanese at the time, a peaceful conclusion to the war in the Pacific would have been achieved, without recourse to what Admiral Leahy called "...this barbaric weapon."

There are some who say that the bomb was dropped to avoid an invasion of the Japanese homelands, but while Operation Olymipic may have looked necessary in 1944, by 1945, it was a complete non-starter. There was no need for it at all, due to the fact that Japan's war making capacity had been reduced to insignificant levels. Her industry was finished and her output was hamstrung by blockade and conventional bombing. Her reserves of oil had deminished so much as to render the vast majority of her war machinery static.

The fact of the matter is that even the United States Bombing survey came to the conclusion that '...certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 (well before the date of the proposed invasion) Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.'

Thus, it leads me to conclude that the bombs were dropped as a live test, in wartime conditions, before the war ended and such a possibility had passed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen BECAUSE they were undamaged and the results of their obliteration would have been (and actually were) invaluable to perpatrators of the deed. It showed clearly and fully what the exact effects were of an atomic attack on a city full of people. Information which was highly prized about an entirely new form of weaponry AND the after-effects of radiation on a human populace.

It also had the desired effect of wagging a very powerful finger at the Soviet Union, for whom to many in the Western Allied nations, had returned to her former (pre-war) status as a potential enemy and one which now occupied half of Europe and had embarked on her own offensive (now unwanted by America) against Japan.

[Neil]

You were watching 'Question Time' last night, weren't you? :)Actually yes! BUT, strangely I had the topic in my mind already for some reason!



Thus, it leads me to conclude that the bombs were dropped as a live test, in wartime conditions, before the war ended and such a possibility had passed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen BECAUSE they were undamaged and the results of their obliteration would have been (and actually were) invaluable to perpatrators of the deed. It showed clearly and fully what the exact effects were of an atomic attack on a city full of people. Information which was highly prized about an entirely new form of weaponry AND the after-effects of radiation on a human populace.

It also had the desired effect of wagging a very powerful finger at the Soviet Union, for whom to many in the Western Allied nations, had returned to her former (pre-war) status as a potential enemy and one which now occupied half of Europe and had embarked on her own offensive (now unwanted by America) against Japan.

I think I agree!

[AcesandEights]

I thought we just had this discussion a few months ago!

I think it was somewhat justified given the nature and scope of the war (though it was arguably a manageable/containable conflict at that point), but several dimensions of the diplomatic and political reasons the bombs were dropped were pretty foul. Also, I wonder how strictly military they could have made their target selection and still maintain the psychological and morale impact that was desired...they could not have dropped on Japanese occupied territory (let's say somewhere in the remainder of their mandate in China) as that would have been low on impact (isolated from the home front) and someone else's territory. I guess a more remote military setting in the home islands would have been good, but I wonder how remote that you could get at that time on the home islands (and still hit something that mattered militarily and was low on civilian casualties). Anyone know?

[rightwing401]

At that point in the war? Who can really say? Japan, for all intense and purposes, had been finished as a major military power. Once the last remnants of their fleet had been wiped out around the Philippines in 1944, they ceased to have any kind of offensive capabilities. Did that make them throw in the towel, when the writing on the wall had to of been obvious even to the most delusional Japanese commanders? No.

To be somewhat fair, the U.S. did drop leaflets in the potential target areas warning the Japanese civilians to leave before the bombs were dropped, giving them some kind of idea of how destructive the atomics would be. I don't think, however, that the Japanese, nor America really, had a true grasp of the full destructive capacity that these bombs were going to inflict.

Hind sights 20/20. We know now that the Japanese at the time were all but done for militarily. Back in late 1945, well even with reading the Japanese codes, it was still unsure just how much they had left. And they didn't show any signs of giving up, without at least America letting them stay all but what they were in pre-war terms. Ideally, if Truman really had wanted to waste one of the few bombs available in a mere demonstration, dropping a bomb in Tokyo harbor would have probably gotten the message across. But then again, even after Hiroshima, the Japanese still didn't want to call it quits.

It took a combination of Nagasaki and the Soviets invading Manchuria for them to finally realize that they needed to admit defeat.

[shootemindehead]

But then again, even after Hiroshima, the Japanese still didn't want to call it quits.

This isn't quite the case though.

The Japs had been searching for a way to "call it quits" for some time, before the first bomb had been dropped and the Americans knew this through the Purple decrypts. The destruction of their fleet in 1944 may not have convinced everyone, but the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9 1945 certainly did convince the majority of the Japanese cabinet that the game was up. But, even before then, they had been considering calling it a day. Moves for peace had actually begun back in the Koiso government at the end of 1944. It was clear that the position they were in was a fruitless one and was only going to get worse. By the time of the Suzuki government, the "hawks" (to use a modern term) were in the minority. Hirohito, himself, made the cabinet sit down and seriously discuss surrender. Probably his most direct impact on his country's war. He told the cabinet directly that they were to end the war "...as soon as possible". In fact, he even dispatched Prince Konoye to Moscow with a mandate to "secure peace at any price".

The war could have come to a peaceful end. The Allies held all the cards and both sides knew it and as Churchill said "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell."

The problem was that if the war came to a peaceful end, the bomb couldn't be used. So, the situation we have is that Japan was playing for time, in the hope that their concessions about the Emperor would be entertained and America was rushing to test their new weapon before the Japanese surrendered and the opportunity was gone.

One more point about the bombs usage is that the time period between the use of Little Boy and Fat Man was extremely short. It really didn't give the Japanese that much time to truly consider what had happened to Hiroshima. We're talking about a period of just 3 days.