76 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what are your opinions of the bombings?

[lfromnj]

By the way one thing to remember about American general's claims that the US didn't need to use nukes is that they may have been afraid that nukes would replace them to a degree.

[Diabolical Materialism]

By the way one thing to remember about American general's claims that the US didn't need to use nukes is that they may have been afraid that nukes would replace them to a degree.

Interesting, source on that?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you hold that it was the Soviets entering the war and not the use of atomic bombs that was the principal cause of the Japanese Government to capitulate, then at a minimum, when compared to other bombing raids, they might not have even reached the top ten. Moreover, even with the premise that it was the Soviet entry that caused Japan to capitulate, the bombs gave the Japanese Government the political fig leaf they needed to do so without losing too much face.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I'm glad I didn't have to make such a decision. It was a horrible choice and I don't think second-guessing Truman after the fact on the bombing is something that has much merit.

That isn't to say we shouldn't talk about it, but I don't think there is any clear "best" answer within the decision-space Truman had available. He avoided "worst" answers (genocide, nuking Tokyo) and the outcome wasn't a failure, so I don't think that the F/H framing is useful It was a dilema with incredible pressure and unclear information.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was a convenient myth that they ended the war.

[LBJer]

We seem to discuss this particular historical issue a lot here.

And it's always the same arguments over and over, just like in debates about abortion or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[OBD]

It was clearly the correct choice. Saved many lives (both American and Japanese), and frankly, I find it pretty hard to have sympathy for the Japanese considering the sh*t they did in China, no sir.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It is important to look at the decision in a 1940s lens and not a 2020s one. Throughout WWII, all sides indiscriminately bombed civilians. We had already firebombed dozens of Japanese cities, killing thousands or tens of thousands of each, and we would have done so much more had we not brought the war to an end with the bombs.

I mean, you should look at things from a 40s lens, no doubt, but in the actual 40s there was a very serious and heated debate about dropping the bombs with numerous individuals - civilian, scientific and military opposing their use. Famously Oppenheimer and other scientists were morally outraged at their use, but in the military field Dwight Eisenhower also recorded his objections, believing Japan was already defeated:

“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, also objected, saying after the war, “The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Truman's chief of staff, Admiral Leahy also was scathing:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan... in being the first to use it, we... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

None other than Curtis LeMay, head of Strategic Air Command, was of the opinion that Japan was already a defeated power and the bombs were unnecessary (he supported the bombing anyway, but dude was like that), as did Hap Arnold, the Army Air Force Commander; General Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral William Halsey (The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it)). Finally in 1946, the Us performed a tactical review of its Strategic Bombing in all theatres and concluded the bombs were not necessary.

I say this not to condemn Truman: there were other voices pointing out various other utilitarian arguments, and I imagine he also had a broader Strategic play in regards to geopolitics, but we shouldn't convince ourselves the anti-bomb debate is a symptom of people being too cloistered and sheltered from the horrors of Total War.

[LBJer]

It was clearly the correct choice. Saved many lives (both American and Japanese), and frankly, I find it pretty hard to have sympathy for the Japanese considering the sh*t they did in China, no sir.

Well it's not like those who were killed or horribly hurt by the bombings (at least the overwhelming majority of them) were responsible for atrocities in China.  Honestly, your attitude doesn't seem too different from the al-Qaeda mentality toward Americans.

Also, it's not entirely clear whether it was the bombs, the Soviet entry into the war against Japan, or a combination of both that caused Japan to surrender.