If you were POTUS in August 1945, would you have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[GregTheGreat657]

Yes. While it is very unfortunate that civilians died from those bombs, more people would have died without the bombs being dropped

[Big Abraham]

I'm not a fan of war crimes or state terrorism, so no.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If im being honest and assuming no future knowledge then probably. WW2 needed to stop and no one could be sure of how suicidal Japan could have been if we attempted an invasion. Looking at the defense of iwo jima and okinawa as well as the Shinto culture things looked bleak as far as forcing a quick surrender by conventional means. I know there is now some public discussion of japan likely surrendering if we announced they could keep their emperor but there was also evidence at the time that theyd still resist. As we discovered the true extent of the holocaust in Europe and Japans similarly grotesque and evil policies in its conquered lands the war really needed to end quickly and totally. And honestly we had already crossed the point of no return with LeMays bombing of Tokyo. If ever there was a modern moral justification for war crimes it was to beat the Axis in WW2.

[TML]

The alternative, according to military analysts, would have been a ground conflict lasting at least into 1946-47, potentially resulting in more casualties than the bombs themselves.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yes.  Atomic bombs needed to be used in war at some point, if only to demonstrate what would happen.  With every powerful nation developing a massive stockpile of the things it's impossible to believe that humanity would make it through the 20th century without ever once actually using them, so it was necessary to turn that hypothetical into reality so the true horror of the bomb would be apparent to all the warmongers of the world.  So it's for the best that it happened in a situation where (A) the bombs used were relatively weak and had a low long-term impact, and (B) the moral justification for using them was about as strong as you were ever going to find.

[Pink Panther]

Even though this would be painful, I would. Considering how the Japanese fought in WW2, they weren't going to surrender without a fight. They were literally starting to arm civilians in preparation for an American invasion. Although the bombings and their aftermaths were hellish for the civilians, it wouldn't have measured to the scale of destruction if there was a full-scale American invasion.

[TDAS04]

As I've said before, I think that some use of the atomic bomb may have been correct, as it saved more people than it killed.  However, I still question the need to target dense civilian populations, and to immediately resort to a 1-2-punch against Nagasaki.  The idea of using a single bomb on an unpopulated island, to scare Japan into surrendering, should have been considered.

[John Dule]

As I've said before, I think that some use of the atomic bomb may have been correct, as it saved more people than it killed.  However, I still question the need to target dense civilian populations, and to immediately resort to a 1-2-punch against Nagasaki.  The idea of using a single bomb on an unpopulated island, to scare Japan into surrendering, should have been considered.

I've considered this too, but I'm pretty sure the US only had two working bombs at the time and it would've taken months to make a third. Under the circumstances it makes sense that they'd want to get the biggest bang for their buck, so to speak.

[NewYorkExpress]

No, I would have dropped them on Berlin (regardless of whether Germany surrendered or not, they deserved that sort of justice a lot more than Japan for the Holocaust alone).

[President Johnson]

In hindsight, definitely not. Today we know that Japan's surrender was mainly a result of the Soviets' invasion and that the Japanese before looked for ways to surrender under the one condition that the Teno can remain.

At the time, I don't know. Only if I was convinced that it would be the only way to end the war immediately and without a more deadly invasion.

[buritobr]

No.
Japan would accept to surrender if Hiroito could still be the emperor.
This is exactly what happened.
No atomic bombs were necessary.

[John Dule]

No, I would have dropped them on Berlin (regardless of whether Germany surrendered or not, they deserved that sort of justice a lot more than Japan for the Holocaust alone).

Only you would need to be told this, but two genocides don't make a right.

[CumbrianLefty]

No, I would have dropped them on Berlin (regardless of whether Germany surrendered or not, they deserved that sort of justice a lot more than Japan for the Holocaust alone).

Even some Nazis were shocked by what the Japanese did in Nanking (yes, really) And stuff like their "experiments" on prisoners if anything surpassed in depravity the crimes Hitler's henchmen did.

Just like Germany, they got what they deserved.

[LBJer]

No, I would have dropped them on Berlin (regardless of whether Germany surrendered or not, they deserved that sort of justice a lot more than Japan for the Holocaust alone).

Even some Nazis were shocked by what the Japanese did in Nanking (yes, really) And stuff like their "experiments" on prisoners if anything surpassed in depravity the crimes Hitler's henchmen did.

Just like Germany, they got what they deserved.

Hard to see how a two year old Japanese kid "deserved" to get nuked for what happened in Nanking, or how a two year old German kid "deserved" the same because of the Holocaust.  Your thinking here is on al-Qaeda's level.  If you want to justify the bombings on utilitarian grounds, that's one thing, but don't pretend that everyone who was killed or horribly injured by them deserved it.  That's blatantly not true.  Most of them didn't.  

Would Iraqis be justified in exploding a nuclear device in DC or London to avenge the unjustified 2003 invasion of their country?

[TDAS04]

No, I would have dropped them on Berlin (regardless of whether Germany surrendered or not, they deserved that sort of justice a lot more than Japan for the Holocaust alone).

Even some Nazis were shocked by what the Japanese did in Nanking (yes, really) And stuff like their "experiments" on prisoners if anything surpassed in depravity the crimes Hitler's henchmen did.

Just like Germany, they got what they deserved.

Hard to see how a two year old Japanese kid "deserved" to get nuked for what happened in Nanking, or how a two year old German kid "deserved" the same because of the Holocaust.  Your thinking here is on al-Qaeda's level.  If you want to justify the bombings on utilitarian grounds, that's one thing, but don't pretend that everyone who was killed or horribly injured by them deserved it.  That's blatantly not true.  Most of them didn't. 

I remember Bill O’Reilly saying about the atomic bombings: “None were innocent.  They all supported their government.”  As if that was even true of the babies.  Yeah, that is Bin Laden talk.

We can debate the merits of the bombings, but acknowledging that civilian casualties are tragic—to say the least—should be something decent people agree on.

[LBJer]

No, I would have dropped them on Berlin (regardless of whether Germany surrendered or not, they deserved that sort of justice a lot more than Japan for the Holocaust alone).

Even some Nazis were shocked by what the Japanese did in Nanking (yes, really) And stuff like their "experiments" on prisoners if anything surpassed in depravity the crimes Hitler's henchmen did.

Just like Germany, they got what they deserved.

Hard to see how a two year old Japanese kid "deserved" to get nuked for what happened in Nanking, or how a two year old German kid "deserved" the same because of the Holocaust.  Your thinking here is on al-Qaeda's level.  If you want to justify the bombings on utilitarian grounds, that's one thing, but don't pretend that everyone who was killed or horribly injured by them deserved it.  That's blatantly not true.  Most of them didn't. 

I remember Bill O’Reilly saying about the atomic bombings: “None were innocent.  They all supported their government.”  As if that was even true of the babies.  Yeah, that is Bin Laden talk.

We can debate the merits of the bombings, but acknowledging that civilian casualties are tragic—to say the least—should be something decent people agree on.

Additionally, I find it hard to condemn people for supporting their government (meaning "supporting" in the normal sense--military service, making war materials, etc.) during war, even if they're on the "wrong side" in a neutral, objective sense by doing so. 

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I understand why it was done, i think it was mainly done indeed because it would save additional casualties and Japan wasn't going to concede easily, but also because USSR might invade Japan and make it communist.

What I would try to do differently is to make a stalemate peace deal with Japan however quite quickly to focus additional war efforts on the nazi's and trying to get it on our side, like what was being done to Italy in WW1. It might have resulted to reputation loss, but I think it would have been the better option, as I believe USA might have been able to increase influence over Japan diplomatically and through peaceful means, while Japan could have hold on to some Russian territories that it gained during the Russian-Japanese war in the early 20th century.

This would have saved even more lives, but it isn't sure it would have worked. Japanese military leaders were pretty insane at the time, even though civilians had no say over it, so I don't really get why such countries have to be punished. And I think strategically it would have made more sense.

Using nuclear bombs were done to quickly end the war, but using them setted a dangerous precedent, in that a nation already used them, so that morally it was okay to use them if you believe it is so, and at what point is it morally okay to use them if every nation is going to decide that for theirselves. Setting that dangerous precedent could have easily backfired in the Cold War, or if a rivak nation in fact had nuclear bombs (if intel was incorrect).

Therefore I lean towards no., but I still don't rule out that after all I would use them or that I could have been persuaded by advisors if diplomatic efforts with Japan would have failed.

[Ferguson97]

No, but that's why I shouldn't be President. In order to command a country's military, you have to be able to make tough calls like that.

It was the correct decision.

[David Hume]

No, I would have dropped them on Berlin (regardless of whether Germany surrendered or not, they deserved that sort of justice a lot more than Japan for the Holocaust alone).

Most of the Germans don't know the horrible things their government did. Dropping atomic bombs after their government surrendered is anti-human war crime and genocide.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Japan surrendered because of a certain event that happened in early August 1945, but it was not the 2nd or 3rd most deadly day of bombing that year against Japan.

[THG]

The alternative option would’ve been a full-scale invasion of Japan and causing significantly greater amounts of death and destruction.

[LBJer]

Like virtually all threads on this subject, this one is flawed by the automatic assumption that the atomic bombs were what ended the war, when in reality serious arguments have been made that it was the Soviet declaration of war on Japan that was decisive. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Truman didn't enter office looking to nuke anyone.  Whatever he was told must have been enough to overwhelmingly convince him.  It may have convinced almost anyone holding that office then.  So I'll say probably (voted yes).

[beaver2.0]

Like virtually all threads on this subject, this one is flawed by the automatic assumption that the atomic bombs were what ended the war, when in reality serious arguments have been made that it was the Soviet declaration of war on Japan that was decisive. 

This is true, however how aware of this were they at the time?  My understanding is that projections for the invasion of the home islands were quite grim and commanders were willing to do anything to shorten the war.  If I could know for sure just another day of Soviet advance would bring an end to the war without the use of atomics then perhaps I wouldn't use the bomb but we can't ever know that.

[Chips]

No, I would've at least fired one in an unpopulated area as a warning.