In general do you believe the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the correct decision?

[lfromnj]

One thing I do consider along with all the other discussed factors is if the bombings were necessary for at least Truman to understand that nuclear bombs could not be used with brevity during Korea and without the actual horror being spread to Truman he might have been willing to relent to Macarthur.

[°Leprechaun]

100% no

[Canis]

100% no

What should we have done than?

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes. Recent research suggests that without the atomic bombs, the US wouldn't have directly invaded Japan but they would have continued a campaign of blockade and strategic bombings that would have involved cutting off rail links to Japanese cities which in turn would have resulted in mass starvation in urban areas.

[TDAS04]

Hiroshima probably not, Nagasaki absolutely not.

I can see the argument for dropping a single bomb on an underpopulated part of Japan as a means to end the war, not sure if targeting big city was necessary.  The use of a second bomb without giving Japan much time to respond seems indefensible.

[HillGoose]

nah, tbh they should have been directed at specifically military targets in Japan (which Hiroshima might qualify idk I'm thinking military bases away from major population centers tho, if any of those existed) as well as Soviet forces occupying Europe at the time

[Horus]

Actually yes. A lot of younger leftists do not understand the mentality of Imperial Japan, there was no other way.

[°Leprechaun]

100% no

What should we have done than?

I don't know a lot about the actual history, but I doubt that there were not better alternatives.

What I do know is that there is a lot of reason to believe that there was plenty of evidence that Japan would have surrendered anyway without any need for further casualties.
No doubt, it was easy to justify because of Pearl Harbor, so those who supported Truman, had a reason to think that it was the right thing to do.

I also don't believe that war is ever necessary or has ever produced good results.

The arms race is insane and M.A.D. is a good way to describe it.

When people say "I only believe in war as the last option", they are all to quick to go to war as if it were the only option. The US spends a disgraceful amount on the military and little to nothing promoting peace by comparison. Perhaps part of the reason for this is that so many in the US don't give much thought to foreign policy and are quick to believe what they are told, as foolish as it is.

edit: for what it's worth Einstein was one of those opposed to this action, although I realize that that by itself doesn't prove anything.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hiroshima probably not, Nagasaki absolutely not.

I can see the argument for dropping a single bomb on an underpopulated part of Japan as a means to end the war, not sure if targeting big city was necessary.  The use of a second bomb without giving Japan much time to respond seems indefensible.

The Japanese literally rejected surrender after Hiroshima and also an invasion would have easily resulted in more casualties, for proof of that just look at Okinawa


Also even after Nagasaki the vote to surrender was still 3-3 and if the emperor didn’t break the tie they still would have refused to surrender

[TJ in Oregon]

No. The intentional targeting of innocent civilians who posed no direct threat to the Allied soldiers is never justified. Yes, I know the consequences of an invasion would have been worse, but targeting civilians like this is never ok regardless of the consequences.

I think the best answer is the blockade.

[Canis]

No. The intentional targeting of innocent civilians who posed no direct threat to the Allied soldiers is never justified. Yes, I know the consequences of an invasion would have been worse, but targeting civilians like this is never ok regardless of the consequences.

I think the best answer is the blockade.

A blockade would have killed much more civilians than the nukings did lol it would last months possibly Years. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is only with hindsight that atomic bombing was seen as substantially different from conventional bombing.

In any case, as Sherman remarked to the Mayor of Atlanta, "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it".

[Kingpoleon]

Hiroshima probably not, Nagasaki absolutely not.

I can see the argument for dropping a single bomb on an underpopulated part of Japan as a means to end the war, not sure if targeting big city was necessary.  The use of a second bomb without giving Japan much time to respond seems indefensible.

Numerous Japanese generals committed suicide after the Empire surrendered, and some even attempted a coup. Anything short of atomic bombings of Japan would have meant the military would refuse to go along with any surrender.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union attacked. The deadliest single day bombing in world history was in Japan in 1945, but involved conventional weapons on Tokyo.

[here2view]

100% yes. The justification for dropping a third bomb would have been higher than the justification for not dropping any at all.

[Alben Barkley]

Absolutely. The alternative would have been a land invasion that would have killed millions of soldiers and civilians (Japanese had plans to fight to the last man, woman, and child, and their tactics to that point had already proven their willingness to resort to extreme measures to avoid surrender). Plus, as noted, it likely would have resulted in whatever might have been left of Japan being divided into Cold War occupation zones like Korea or Germany.

There is zero doubt in my mind that the bombings were the best solution for Japan, the US, and the world as a whole. Japan is definitely far better off today than it would have been after an invasion. Plus, already far more civilians had died in conventional bombings (including in just a single raid over Tokyo), yet they never get the same condemnation for some reason.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Has anyone ever done a poll of this question in Japan itself?  I'd genuinely be curious to see the answer and wouldn't at all be surprised to see better approval numbers for this decision in Japan than in the United States.

[Big Abraham]

No, and as even Eisenhower and MacArthur full well knew, the atomic bombings were unnecessary because they did not cause the surrender of imperial Japan. The Japanese had already been firebombed by, collectively, much heavier amount of detonation, and in much more populated areas too (see the bombing of Tokyo). As was made clear from declassified archives, the Japanese ministry had already been discussing suing for surrender, and there is no evidence the atomic weapons influenced their decision. Indeed, one might just as easily make the case that the Soviet invasion of Japan—which was a full-fledged military invasion from a hostile industrial power to the north, a juggernaut which had just defeated the Nazis en masse on the Eastern Front—proved a far more decisive threat, given that it actually threatened the existence of Japan as a nation, rather than two bombings which already collectively killed even fewer people than during the firebombing campaign.

But even if we assume that Japan wasn't ready to surrender and that further action was needed to end the war, continuing the standard naval blockade would have worked just fine. Would more people have died in the long run? It's likely, but a blockade is standard military procedure and had been for centuries by that point, and even though citizens are obviously indirectly affected, it is not directly targeting civilians, who of course are not targeted in anything other than a war crime. There could even have just been a continuation of the firebombing campaign (which of course was already an unjustified aggression on civilians, and therefore an act of terrorism), because that still would have fallen under the purview of conventional weaponry (ironically, this would have caused even more deaths and damage to infrastructure).

The bomb was dropped largely as an act of intimidation, towards the Japanese yes, but also to the Russians, as they did not have a nuclear program yet. 250k+ deaths is not appropriate for what is essentially an exercise in American muscle-flexing. If any other country, including our Russian allies, had done such a thing as develop a weapon of this magnitude, and release them onto a large city, it would have been swiftly condemned as an act of state terrorism, or at least as a mere war crime. If the Germans had done such a thing, forget it

[Ferguson97]

Yes, a prolonged war would have killed millions of more people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Has anyone ever done a poll of this question in Japan itself?  I'd genuinely be curious to see the answer and wouldn't at all be surprised to see better approval numbers for this decision in Japan than in the United States.

They might incorrectly agree because they follow the myth of a powerless Emperor who had to surrender because of a surprising new weapon.

[TJ in Oregon]

No. The intentional targeting of innocent civilians who posed no direct threat to the Allied soldiers is never justified. Yes, I know the consequences of an invasion would have been worse, but targeting civilians like this is never ok regardless of the consequences.

I think the best answer is the blockade.

A blockade would have killed much more civilians than the nukings did lol it would last months possibly Years. 

That would be the Japanese government killing them, not us. This forum may be full of consequentialists but I am not one.

[DC Al Fine]

No. The intentional targeting of innocent civilians who posed no direct threat to the Allied soldiers is never justified. Yes, I know the consequences of an invasion would have been worse, but targeting civilians like this is never ok regardless of the consequences.

I think the best answer is the blockade.

Alternatively were there any military targets or isolated areas they could've nuked, that were neglected by the brass? That could've hopefully had the same effect.

E.g. If the roles were reversed: Japan nuking some random Alaskan island and then informing the US that San Francisco is next if they don't surrender immediately.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Would more people have died in the long run? It's likely, but a blockade is standard military procedure and had been for centuries by that point

I'm not a WWII historian, but morally this line of reasoning has always rung hollow to me. If all human life is worth the same and worth preserving, (which obviously it is,) I can see the absolutist argument that dropping the bomb was morally unacceptable —but why is killing a greater number of people more acceptable just because it is done by "conventional" means? Which leads me to the conclusion that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is abhorred not because a lot of people died, not because they were civilians, but because since 1945 the use of nuclear weapons has become socially taboo thanks to the Cold War. I suspect if Truman had firebombed Hiroshima, nobody in this thread would even remember, despite such an action being equally reprehensible.

If dropping the bomb didn't actually influence the Japanese to surrender, that's another issue, and a more compelling argument in my view.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Would more people have died in the long run? It's likely, but a blockade is standard military procedure and had been for centuries by that point

I'm not a WWII historian, but morally this line of reasoning has always rung hollow to me. If all human life is worth the same and worth preserving, (which obviously it is,) I can see the absolutist argument that dropping the bomb was morally unacceptable —but why is killing a greater number of people more acceptable just because it is done by "conventional" means? Which leads me to the conclusion that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is abhorred not because a lot of people died, not because they were civilians, but because since 1945 the use of nuclear weapons has become socially taboo thanks to the Cold War. I suspect if Truman had firebombed Hiroshima, nobody in this thread would even remember, despite such an action being equally reprehensible.

If dropping the bomb didn't actually influence the Japanese to surrender, that's another issue, and a more compelling argument in my view.

Is it true? There is plenty of discussion about whether the bombing of Dresden and the Great Tokyo Air Raid were justified, for example.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Would more people have died in the long run? It's likely, but a blockade is standard military procedure and had been for centuries by that point

I'm not a WWII historian, but morally this line of reasoning has always rung hollow to me. If all human life is worth the same and worth preserving, (which obviously it is,) I can see the absolutist argument that dropping the bomb was morally unacceptable —but why is killing a greater number of people more acceptable just because it is done by "conventional" means? Which leads me to the conclusion that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is abhorred not because a lot of people died, not because they were civilians, but because since 1945 the use of nuclear weapons has become socially taboo thanks to the Cold War. I suspect if Truman had firebombed Hiroshima, nobody in this thread would even remember, despite such an action being equally reprehensible.

If dropping the bomb didn't actually influence the Japanese to surrender, that's another issue, and a more compelling argument in my view.

Is it true? There is plenty of discussion about whether the bombing of Dresden and the Great Tokyo Air Raid were justified, for example.

Not to nearly the same degree, though. "Dresden" or "Tokyo" simply do not carry the same weight as "Hiroshima" with the general public, presumably because they aren't seen as inaugurating a new age of warfare —simply two more atrocities in a war filled with atrocities.