The A-Bombs

I guess this is as much of a 'buzz' topic as Roseanne, but every year near the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima we have to hear the story of the Bombs That Won WWII. I don't want to argue the morality of atomic weapons, or of war itself. I only want to assess how necessary the use of atomic weapons was to ending the war.I found the book "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by Gal Alperowitz extrememly useful in dispelling many myths about the end of WWII, and Doug Long has an excellent website No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.doug-long.com/ that also deals with the debate.My own opinion (shared by neither author mentioned above, incidentally) is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were merely the final steps in the Manhattan Project, and were not necessary to end the war. The Potsdam Declaration explicitly avoided any mention of the imperial dynasty. The Allies realized the Japanese would never surrender without assurances that they would be able to retain their Emperor. They also had knowledge that during July, Japan had sent a diplomat to then-neutral Russia at the behest of the Emperor to negotiate acceptable peace terms with the Allies.The decision to call for unconditional surrender was made against the advice of high-ranking military officials. When the Japanese ignored the Potsdam Declaration, Hiroshima was bombed without warning. Three days later the Soviets declared war and invaded Manchuria. The same day, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Still the surrender did not come.It was only after U. S. Secretary of State Byrnes assured Hirohito that his fate would be in the hands of the Supreme Allied Commander (MacArthur, who had earlier advised Roosevelt that the support of the Emperor would be essential to rebuilding Japan) that Hirohito gave the order to surrender. This was a full week after the bombing of Hiroshima.The figures we hear concerning cost-benefit analyses of American lives saved by the use of the atom bombs are mere post-hoc rationalizations. These constitute the same revisionism that A-bomb supporters claim to deplore. If the fate of Japan's Emperor had been made explicit in the Potsdam Declaration, surrender may have come before the end of July. In that case, the casualties of the A-bombs as well as the anticipated Allied invasion would have been rendered absolutely unnecessary.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-04-2003]

Thank you for that site and your thoughts. I knew some of the politics behind that fateful decision, but nothing too hardcore indepth. I do agree that people try rationalise this in a completely different way after it happened, but I believe that comes down to human nature. I feel that we as people make choices not really understanding why we made them. And our brains rationalise this after the fact.I'll get back to you after I read some more (naturally I haven't thoroughly delved into and scrutinised that site as yet).------------------

quote:

---

All the boys think she's a spy

---

Very interesting. I'd previously been a subscriber to the cost-analysis theory. Either way I think that the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was totally unacceptable.However, across history I think the A-Bomb has done more good than harm (primarly it prevented the Cold War going hot and resulting in WWIII) and I doubt whether it would have had the same deterrant effect if not used on Hiroshima, and find it likely any following use would have been more devestating since more countries would have had more bombs.A truly ugly affair.

While I tend to agree, these are the sorts of areas I didn't want to get into: what's acceptable in hindsight, etc. Anyone else have any thoughts about the necessity of dropping the bombs to end WWII?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

What was the necessity for WWII in the first place?Not the revelations afer-the-fact, but the need for war
as seen by those who made the decision.

Let's start with the A-bombs and work backward then. Any thoughts?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

quote:

---

What was the necessity for WWII in the first place?

---

Most of Europe had no choice, really. It took the US too long, IMO, to realize that Hitler was about to be The European Power and that he was a bit of a scary man. I don't think we had much choice either. U-boat were already sinking our ships. That is a declaration of war, or close enough.The Japanese kinda started the Pacific war, so I don't see what choice the US had in that one either.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I found this article on the CNN website.CNN.com - Blood on Our Hands? - Aug. 5, 2003It's an op-ed piece, but it quotes some of the political insiders of Japan. Some of the more interesting quotes follow: I personally feel that the bombings were an unfortunate necessity.

I can't find references to U-boat attacks (post WWI)
until september 1939 ... the war had already started then...
or did you just mean US involvement?

Well, the US had an oil embargo in place that would destroy Japan economically in less than a years time. Not all wars are fought with guns and bombs.[This message has been edited by kjsimons, 08-05-2003]

quote:

---

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."

---

What's interesting is that the political stalemate only existed because the Potsdam Declaration called for unconditional surrender and had no provision for the retention of the Emperor. The hawks in the Japanese cabinet must have considered the Declaration a gift from heaven, since it allowed them to argue in favor of prolonging the war.

quote:

---

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.

---

In that case, why didn't they end the war when the bomb was dropped? Surrender only came at the behest of the Emperor when his status was clarified by the U.S. government, four entire days after the second bomb was detonated.I don't doubt that the U.S. intended to allow the Japanese to retain their Emperor all along. However, the Potsdam Declaration allowed the U.S. to detonate the bombs ostensibly in response to the refusal of the Japanese to accept the unconditional surrender.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Here's a wild eyed speculation based on no knowledge of the real people or situation.We sometimes give to much credit for thoughtfullness. One possibility is that the "unconditional surrender" is just a habit of thought. These "bad guys" started this, we are obviously beating them, we have an ace up our sleeve so of course it is "unconditional surrender". They may simple have not thought it trough well enough.In any case, I can't figure any justification for the Nagasaki bomb so close after the first one. It seems to me that time should have been allowed for the impact of Hiroshima to sink in.Does anyone know what the justification for that is?

What's the Japanese perspective on this?I mean, looking through their military history you get the sense that unneccesary, punative, decisive large-scale cruelty is not something they're unfamiliar with.They may not feel that they nuclear extinction of two of their cities is completely unpardonable given their treatment of the Chinese and Koreans at the time.Or, they may be pissed as hell. Does anybody know?

Like I said, both bombs were the test runs that concluded the expensive Manhattan Project. Hiroshima was decimated by a uranium bomb, and Nagasaki got it with plutonium. Also, the Soviets invaded Manchuria right before Nagasaki was destroyed, an extremely fortuitous coincidence I'm sure.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Mr H
That's the anti bomb perspective. I was wondering if there were any arguments supporting using the Nagsaki bomb so very quickly?