Did U.S. Have to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[YankeeFan]

When did this become a question?

Did the United States have to drop the bomb?

President Harry S. Truman defended his decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the only way to avoid a full-scale invasion of Japan. That, arguably, would have cost more lives, American and Japanese, than the approximately 200,000 who died in the two atomic attacks.

Critics have contended that the Japanese were sending signals that they were prepared to surrender, but that these were either missed or ignored, and that the United States wanted to demonstrate to the world — and particularly to the Soviet Union — the awesome power it had at its disposal.

The New York Times would like to know how our readers view the decision 70 years after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Submit your arguments, and we will publish some of them before the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing on Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/w...p-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.html

 

[Michael_ Gee]

This became a question when historians learned that the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan was regarded by leading Japanese officials, perhaps including Hirohito, as a catastrophe sufficient in itself to require Japan's surrender. Of course, Truman and our government had no way of knowing that. You can only assess decisions on the basis of what the decision-makers knew (or thought they knew, which is where most mistakes come in) at the time.

 

[YankeeFan]

In today's worldview does:

Truman dropping the bomb = Teddy Roosevelt hunting big game = Washington/Jefferson owning slaves?

By today's standard, there's no way to defend the actions of Roosevelt, or certainly Washington/Jefferson.

But, does Truman deserve the same treatment? If we cast Truman's decision as wrong, or even evil, aren't we looking at the word as how we wish it were, and not how it was, and may even be in the future?

 

[User 11148]

"Would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?" -- War Minister Anami

 

[Michael_ Gee]

There was a substantial group within the Japanese military who rejected surrender even after the bombs were dropped. Junior officers tried to kidnap the Emperor to prevent his statement to the nation choosing surrender. But there was also a substantial group within the government looking for a way out before the bombs were dropped. Their hope was Russian mediation. When Stalin declared war, as he had promised to at Yalta, that game was up and that faction of the Japanese government began to consider surrender as an option. Included persons close to Hirohito.
This is all very academic. Given the facts before him, Truman made the only decision he could have.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Given the facts before him, Truman made the only decision he could have.

Yes. And this is just about the highest praise one can give. It was an impossible situation.

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

I don't mind questioning history and the decisions made, even if questioning means the answer remains the same. The only way you learn anything is to truly pick it apart and study it. That's what all of that dissecting of animals was about in science class.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

When did this become a question?

Aug. 6, 1945, based on the dateline of that NYT piece where he "defended his decision to drop atomic bombs." You don't have to defend something if everybody agrees with you.

 

[BTExpress]

Regardless of the right/wrong aspect in dropping the bomb, it forever removed us from the moral high ground of ever being able to deny anyone else the weapon --- without sounding like the USH (United States of Hypocrites) we are. 70 years after it was first dropped, we remain the ONLY nation ever to use it against another people. Scoreboard still reads, God Bless America 2, Evil Empire 0, Rest of the World 0.

And I think Truman starting the Cold War in 1947 caused far more damage, over generations, than his dropping of the bomb.

 

[MisterCreosote]

I don't mind questioning history and the decisions made, even if questioning means the answer remains the same. The only way you learn anything is to truly pick it apart and study it. That's what all of that dissecting of animals was about in science class.

True, but I wish we'd stop analyzing history from the position that it's possible to wage a completely sanitized war.

In an impossibly complex war, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that any decision can be both correct and horrifically amoral.

 

[TigerVols]

Regardless of the right/wrong aspect in dropping the bomb, it forever removed us from the moral high ground of ever being able to deny anyone else the weapon --- without sounding like the USH (United States of Hypocrites) we are. 70 years after it was first dropped, we remain the ONLY nation ever to use it against another people. Scoreboard still reads, God Bless America 2, Evil Empire 0, Rest of the World 0.

Rest of the World, 0? Yeah, America's dropping of the bombs and saving millions of lives on both sides really left the Rest of the World defeated for eternity.

 

[User 11148]

If you've got the time to slog through it, I highly recommend Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb. He makes an interesting point that, in the use of the A-bomb, the U.S. (sort of) made its further use unthinkable. There was a thread about WWII deaths earlier this year that sort of led to the same inference.

 

[BTExpress]

Rest of the World, 0? Yeah, America's dropping of the bombs and saving millions of lives on both sides really left the Rest of the World defeated for eternity.

The scoreboard reflected ONLY the total number of nuclear weapons used against another people. We've used 2. Nobody else has used any.

It was not intended as a "State of the World" calculation. Sheeesh.

 

[Stoney]

When did this become a question?

Precisely 70 years ago.

 

[Ace]

Of course the answer is no, the U.S. didn't have to drop the bomb.

The question is, was it the best course of action?

Lots of people say yes, some say no.

I think you could easily make the case that Nagasaki wasn't necessary. If you wanted to prove it wasn't the U.S. wasn't one-bomb wonder, you could have dropped it in the occean nearby and said you have plenty where that came from, right?

 

[93Devil]

I think that fact that we needed to drop two, not at the same time, to get them to give up pretty much says they were not on the verge of giving up anytime soon when the first one was dropped.

Dropping the bomb was horrible, but taking the entire island of Japan would have been a complete and total ****show. We would have done it, but it would have been slow and bloody.

Japan pretty much was doomed after Midway and they were totally ****ed when Germany and the Axis forces played down their weapons three months prior and America could focus resources on Japan.

 

[SBR]

Aug. 6, 1945, based on the dateline of that NYT piece where he "defended his decision to drop atomic bombs." You don't have to defend something if everybody agrees with you.

Did you follow the link to the actual statement? There's nothing in it that implies a "defense" of his decision. It's a completely straightforward statement explaining what the bomb is and some of the background on how it was developed.

The "defended his decision" description is revisionist verbiage used by the present-day editors.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Did you follow the link to the actual statement? There's nothing in it that implies a "defense" of his decision. It's a completely straightforward statement explaining what the bomb is and some of the background on how it was developed.

The "defended his decision" description is revisionist verbiage used by the present-day editors.

But Truman did have to "defend his decision" to many people. Questioning the use of the bomb is not a new thing.

Mises Daily | Mises Institute
MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb

 

[CD Boogie]

Both bombs were necessary because they refused to surrender. Besides, they started it by bombing Pearl Harbor, so a little payback was probably in order, propelled in part by racism. Would we have used the bomb on the Germans? Maybe.

 

[Spartan Squad]

The bomb was developed because the Americans thought Hitler was going to build one. They might have dropped it on Germany if the war went in that direction. If D-Day hadn't worked, they might have (though Stalin was doing pretty well driving Germany back to the sea).

There have been questions for years about the use of the bomb that only grew in number as the full ramifications of dropping the bombs came into light. The lingering effects of the bombs called their use into even greater question as Japan dealt with the radiation exposure.

But it's an interesting debate about the decision to actually drop the bombs. Scientists such as Einstein famously implored Truman to not use the weapon. Oppenheimer lamented that he had become death, in quoting the Hindu text. That was contrasted with the very real possibility that invading Japan would produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million casualties between the two sides. Japan was gearing up its citizenry to make one last stand in defense of the home land. Russia making the turn away from Germany to launch into Japan opened the possibility that Stalin would have taken over and he would never leave. Japan was finished, but if you look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, casualties were horrendous and dragged on. The invasion of the home islands would have taken forever.