Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified?

I agree. Only in name. Strategic bombing in WWII is basically another term for indiscriminately bombing areas with the intent of killing the opponents workforce, factories and other citizens for the purposes of lowering national morale, capacity and will to make war aka intentionally and with malice aforethought, killing citizens.If you're going to do that, my opinion is that you need to be very sure it is the right thing to do.If, for instance, the nation is teetering on the edge of surrender and are just looking for a suitable exit strategy, that might not be the time for strategic nuking, unless you want to send a message to other potential enemies. What do you make of the quotes that dronester posted that seem to indicate that some big names were not sure at all? And feeling sure and being sure might be different things, no?

1) the discussion of whether hostilities should have continued at all in anticipation of a possible immanent Japanese surrender is a separate discussion from whether nuclear weapons should have been used. Immanent surrender is equally a justification to forestall an invasion just as much as it is against the use of nuclear weapons.2) The available actual evidence, that is the casualty vs capture rates of the Japanese military forces at Iwo Jima and other islands as well as the civilian deaths in those battles is more than just suggestive of massive civilian and military casualties in an invasion of the actual main Japanese island. Those numbers are not projections, they are actual casualty rates. I'd like to remind you of what I posted earlier:

quote:

---

Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed and only 1,083 taken prisoner.[11]

---

That's a little greater than a 95% casualty rate. More than 95% of the Japanese soldiers on that island died rather than surrender or be captured.I'll add a bit about Okinawa, just to show that Iwo Jima wasn;t a fluke:

quote:

---

Of the 117,000 Japanese troops defending Okinawa, 94 percent died.[79]

---

Both from Wiki.Not a projection. Not a prediction. Actual already-happened-and-we-counted fact. If that data is used as a prediction for the results of an invasion of the Japanese main island, how many Japanese military dead would we have seen? According to Wiki:

quote:

---

By August, they had 14 divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank brigades, for a total of 900,000 men.

---

95% casualties would have resulted in 855,000 deaths. The Japanese military was at the time in full awareness of the inevitability of defeat, and was simply ordering men and civilians to take out as many invaders as they could before they died (or, in the case of the thousands of Kamikaze pilots, as they died).In the case of civilians, at Okinawa alone, there were an

quote:

---

Estimated 42,000—150,000 civilians killed

---

That was around a third of the total population of the island, most of them suicides.What exactly would count as convincing evidence, Mod, that the Japanese military and civilians were so fanatically devoted to fighting and then committing suicide when further victory became impossible? If not the actual events at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, what would be convincing?From what I see, an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have involved many hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese civilians, as well as an extremely high casualty rate for the invading forces. This would have been preceded by additional airstrikes (which were going on already; a bombing on Tokyo caused a firestorm that killed around 100,000 people, and nobody seems to bat an eyelash).The situation as I see it (assuming that hostilities continued at all; again, the debate on whether the Japanese were "teetering on the edge of surrender" is an entirely separate debate from how to proceed with hostilities if they should continue) is that the US needed to either horrify the Japanese with an attack so utterly devastating that it would shock them into a surrender, or go through with an invasion. Destroying cities and high death tolls was not convincing to the Japanese. The annihilation of their military and civilian populations while island hopping was not convincing. The destruction of their entire navy as a viable fighting force was not convincing. Civilians were going to fight or commit suicide in the case of an invasion.War is, by definition, an environment with no good choices; there are only choices that are less terrible than the alternatives. I think that the evidence provided by Iwo Jima and Okinawa solidly proves beyond a reasonable doubt that an invasion would have been worse than the two nuclear weapons used in terms of death caused.As to whether or not the Japanese were about to surrender anyway and we should have stopped all hostilities, including conventional bombing, mining their harbors by air, and so on...that's en entirely separate discussion, one I'd be glad to have, and one we might actually reach quick agreement on. The final strikes of WW2 were enormous tragedies.

When discussing the moral path to take, you must account for all possibilities. It is not a dichotomy. So sure, one might conclude that an invasion might have been worse for civilians than two nuclear bombs dropping on them, but if doing neither results in less lives lost and the goal of Japanese surrender - it seems a pertinent point in a moral discussion as to what course of action the US should have taken.We could argue all day about whether shooting someone in the gut is justified because it is better than shooting them in the face, but when an alternative option of 'shoot them in the leg' exists which has the same end result - doing one of the other two might seem morally questionable.

If you are going to discount my arguments in such a flippant manner why do we need to continue this conversation?Was Nagasaki a vital seaport with major war industry? Yes. Please incorporate this fact into your arguments. See what you did here? You have blurred the line between war and murder without any inkling of what war is. If there was a ship factory that was bombed by Allied planes and a bike messenger was killed you would call it murder. You need to rethink your view of what war is. On Saipan, the Japanese were utterly defeated. What did they do? Charge Allied lines with nothing more than katanas, or jump to their deaths. There was no "edge of surrender" where conventional warfare was concerned. I think those quotes are clear examples of remorse that are divorced from logic.

To be fair, the topic of the thread is 'Was the use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified', and the arguments given in the opening post all essentially rest on the imminent surrender of Japan. I'd say the discussion as to whether nuclear weapons or invasion were the preferable option is a secondary issue. The more important question is whether an invasion would have been necessary, had nuclear weapons not been used. I've got no idea, personally, but it seems to me that this is the question that should be settled first.

Hey Modulous,A million apologies for asking your two cents. It seems I stuck you in an american briar patch. As payback, I'm willing to trade places with you next time you are stuck in another apoplectic "debate". Thanks Mod, it appears only non-americans get this. Thanks Caf, it appears you fully understand this thread's argument too. Another non-american?, go figure.It's like my long post was neither read, nor comprehended. It's as if I didn't show any supporting evidence that "In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary."

Flippant? Are you suggesting that my definition of strategic bombing is in error?

quote:

---

Strategic bombing in WWII is basically another term for indiscriminately bombing areas with the intent of killing the opponents workforce, factories and other citizens for the purposes of lowering national morale, capacity and will to make war aka intentionally and with malice aforethought, killing citizens.

---

wiki:

quote:

---

Strategic bombing is a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating an enemy nation-state by destroying its economic ability and public will to wage war rather than destroying its land or naval forces...
One of the aims of war is to demoralise the enemy, so that peace or surrender becomes preferable to continuing the conflict. Strategic bombing has been used to this end. The phrase "terror bombing" entered the English lexicon towards the end of World War II and many strategic bombing campaigns and individual raids have been described as terror bombing by commentators and historians

---

I consider deliberately targetting civillians to be murder. When civillians are accidentally killed as part of targetting military assets we might call that 'collateral damage'. And war creates one hell of a blurry line, right? No I wouldn't. That would not be indiscriminate, and it wouldn't have been done with the intention of killing civillians, but rather to destroy a factory. Of course, if 5 square miles of land was carpet bombed just to make sure the factory was hit, and a sizeable portion of workforce was killed or demoralised - that would be closer to murder. And yet the Japanese surrendered without committing mass suicide within days. I see.

You didn't.Rather, you showed that some high-profile leaders were concerned that an invasion may not have been necessary.You may recall, however, that evidence has been posted which clearly shows a pattern of literal death-before-surrender on the part of the Japanese, where both civilians and military alike would engage in suicidal charges, kamikaze attacks, or simply throw themselves from great heights to avoid remaining alive in the face of an Allied victory.It was a very clearly established doctrine among the Japanese leadership that surrender was not to be truly considered. There were some individuals who dissented, but even after the first nuclear weapon was used against Hiroshima, the "Big Six" still did not decide to surrender; they maintained that it was literally better for the entire Japanese population to die rather than accept the Allied terms of surrender (or, indeed, any terms in the case of some members).Surrender was not going to happen until Hirohito himself forced the matter...and even then some members of the "Big Six" attempted a coup to avoid even Hirohito's express instruction that surrender be offered.Japan was defeated, yes. Their Navy was a shambles and had long since ceased to be a viable fighting force. THis meant they could no longer project military power outside of their remaining territory, or effectively defend it. THey had some thousands of planes, but these were largely Kamikaze, as they had a shortage of skilled pilots. Their economy was ruined, as the Allies had blockaded the islands and mined their coastal waters from the air. While anti-air defense was still possible to a degree, the Allies were able to continue a conventional air-bombing campaign that included attacks that created higher death tolls than the nuclear weapons themselves. Japan was nearly out of oil entirely, and could not resupply their military or even effectively feed their civilians. In short, Japan was toothless, unable to attack or even effectively defend itself against the Allies.Yet Japan still would not surrender. You mention the difference between American and non-American attitudes, but you seem incapable of comprehending the basic facts of 1940s Japanese culture. The Emperor was literally considered a living deity. "Saving face" was not just a matter of avoiding the unpleasantness of embarrassment. "Honor" was a flawed concept clung to with religious zeal, even when it required suicide rather than defeat. The civilians, even, were ready to throw their bodies and even the bodies of their children at invading forces in suicidal attacks that would have resulted in the annihilation of the Japanese culture in its entirety."They didn't know when to quit" doesn't even begin to cover this.Firebombing Tokyo and killing 100,000 people didn't shock the Japanese leadership sufficiently to surrender. The threat of imminent invasion wasn't enough. Blockading the island and stopping all trade or even fishing wasn't enough. Nuking Hiroshima wasn't enough. If it weren't for Hirohito himself, even nuking Nagasaki still wouldn't have been enough, as it's clear the "Big Six" as a unit (despite some dissenters) had no interest in surrender even then.Even a cessation of hostilities and simply maintaining the naval and aerial blockade to wait out an eventual surrender, a nation-wide siege, would have resulted in thousands of deaths or more just due to starvation and the utter halt of the Japanese economy (without imports, they'd lose all access to oil, medicine, etc.; without fish, they'd run out of food).Again, there were no good choices here. War is terrible, even when you're trying to end it. Invasion results in unspeakable death. Blockade without invasion results in death. Nuclear weapons result in death.The only solution was surrender on the part of the Japanese...and the ball was entirely in their court. The Japanese leadership continually, even after all of these things, to not take the reasonable option and surrender. Instead they continued to wage a propaganda war painting Allied soldiers as murdering, raping, torturing, thieving barbarians. We know from Japanese soldiers and citizens who survived Iwo Jima and Okinawa that both were terrified of the Americans, not only as a matter of honor but because they were actually convinced that the Americans would brutally torture and murder them anyway. They expressed shocked relief when they were treated well after capture.Essentially, your position confuses me. We know for an absolute fact that the Japanese did not surrender even after a nuclear weapon was used on Hiroshima, and that even after Nagasaki and an Imperial command to surrender, the military leaders of the "Big Six" resisted and had every intention of fighting to the last man, woman, and child.We know this for absolute certainty because it's what actually happened, not simply a matter of speculation.Why, then, knowing that even after being completely de-clawed and the use of nuclear weapons the Japanese leadership was still so reluctant to surrender, are you so convinced that surrender was forthcoming?

sigh.

quote:

---

ALBERT EINSTEIN (local smart guy)
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."
Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.

---

quote:

---

Madeline Albright writes:
"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

---

I'll tell ya what: In addition to Dwight Eisenhower, ADMIRAL William Leahy, HERBERT HOOVER, GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR, JOHN McCLOY, Assistant Sec. of War, BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE, . . . I'll walk with ALBERT EINSTEIN, and you can walk with Madeline Albright.(And I don't envy Madeline Albright)

dronester, you're appealing to the beliefs of non-Japanese authorities.An appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. Show me that the Japanese were about to surrender, not that some Allied big names thought they were going to surrender.

I think this point is worth repeating: Not only that, but there really was no indication that this was going to change - in fact the actual plan developed by the Big Six to deal with an allied invasion, Ketsugo, made no qualms about throwing civilians armed with bows and spears against a modern army armed with machine guns and mortars. Bear in mind, they did this not because they thought they could win - but because they thought they could use all the casualties as a bargaining chip to negotiate a better position for themselves.

quote:

---

In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corpswhich included all healthy men aged 15—60 and women 17—40, numbering 28 millionto perform combat support, and ultimately combat jobs. Weapons, training, and uniforms were generally lacking: some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.[25]
One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told, "Even killing one American soldier will do. You must aim for the abdomen."[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/...n_Downfall#Operation_Ketsug.C5.8D

---

What evidence is there that this pattern of behavior by the Japanese government would change?If they deadlocked on a surrender following a nuclear attack why on earth should we expect anything less than a prolonged deadlock during negotiations? Having already decided to throw 28 million civilians into battle as cannon fodder would the Big Six have batted an eye as their country began to starve around them during the inevitable famine? Would the military have even obeyed an order to surrender without the looming threat of defeat without the need for an allied invasion? Would the thousands of prisoners of war suffering in prison camps throughout Japanese controlled territory have survived given the kill all orders which had been issued (and, in some cases, carried out)?Lurker

True, but only because the order was perceived as coming from a legitimate authority as well as because it was recognized that the U.S. could destroy Japan without invading. Without both of these factors I doubt that would have happened - and neither of these factors would have come into play during a prolonged period of blockade & diplomacy.Lurker

Not just a legitimate authority.The Emperor. He made a national radio address specifically stating that the reason for surrender was that the only alternative was the complete and total destruction of Japanese culture and the Japanese people. To the Japanese at the time, Hirohito was a living god. The suicidal fanaticism was over protecting the Emperor and his honor in the first place. If the Emperor says to surrender and preserve Japan, then the citizenry will do it.Well...for the average citizen and soldier anyway. The military leadership was willing to stage a coup to stop that address, after all. Fortunately they were unsuccessful.

No argument there. I'm simply saying that had Japan's society crumbled under the pressure of massive famine or if the military leadership perceived that they still had a chance to blunt an invasion the order to surrender would likely not have been so consistently followed. And I think both of those scenarios are quite likely had the U.S. entered into a prolonged period of blockade & diplomacy.Lurker

Hi Rahvin, the following diatribe is not directed as a personal insult in any way. Just wanna get that disclaimer out there before you stomp a literary mudhole in my a$$.With all due respect (and I feel much is do), this assertion relies heavily on circumstantial support; there’s no actual evidence surrender was impossible (obviously), but rather it’s the same as saying ‘surrender was inevitable & right around the corner’ (which there is also no actual evidence for).However, while circumstantial support isn't evidence in the scientific sense of the word, it's better than none.You noted yourself a coup attempt was made opposing Hirohito's express instruction’s surrender be offered. While we have evidence the coup failed, we do not have evidence ‘a coup would have never been successful.’ Likewise, we have no evidence ‘surrender was not going to happen’, just as we have no evidence that one of us will hit the lottery tomorrow.Any attempt to avoid surrender is evidence there was opposition to surrender - not that surrender was literally impossible, but rather perhaps utterly improbable. However, utterly improbable is no more equivalent to literally impossible than ‘8’ is to ‘9’. Whether similar or mutually exclusive, they’re individual options and distinct from one another.The result of an action provides for traces of evidence. For example, we have evidence Japanese terrorists flew planes into a US naval installation, as well as evidence two Japanese cities were completely and utterly annihilated. Additionally, the evidence points to the fact a surrender option was shelved by the US, who was apparently in agreement of sorts with the Emperor and the ‘Big Six’ that it was the last thing anybody was gonna do.Finally, we have evidence Japan was not willing to fight to the last man and risk racial genocide and would choose surrender when faced with the desecration or disappearance of their ancient culture (imagine that).There seems to be a hue of altruism in the idea that although Japan was all but defeated with their Navy in shambles, a shortage of skilled pilots, diving into economical ruin, completely out of oil and food, ultimately ‘toothless, unable to attack or even effectively defend itself against the Allies’ and unwilling to - though obviously not incapable of, surrender - the US was still compassionate enough to take on the role of Dr. Death and do the right thing if it had to. One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary