Was Dropping the Atomic Bomb Necessary for Ending the War with Japan?

[Jim O]

Nothing like a controversial subject to get a discussion going.

First question is was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima necessary? I'll leave that a bit vague knowing that "necessary" and "justified" are different, but feel free to comment on both.

Second, given the effect of the Hiroshima bomb, what of the Nagasaki bomb?

Your votes will be private. Only the groups totals will show.

[Sarge]

In hindsight we can see that dropping the bombs were pretty much unecessary. However, the decision was made, the US could have tried a very diffrent strategy and they had the options.

They could have invaded, which would have proved costly as had been seen in other battles to date.

They could have blockaded Japan and awaited the inevitable.

I think if the Japanese had made it more obvious that they were totally beaten earlier then it would have made a diffrence.

I have read a bit on the subject and I think that it was partly military, partly political and also partly because the bomb existed. In the end they probably caused less damage than continuing the low-level area fire-bombing campaign. I voted unecessary, but as I said, I know more than they did when deciding too use them.

[mark_olivares]

With the fire bombing campaign continuing, Japan's merchant marine destroyed, and the Allies about to begin a new air campaign to destroy Japan's rail system - her last way to move food around - Japan would have faced starvation and deaths of millions in the winter of 1945-46.

So maybe a better question is, did the bomb actually save japan from a less dramatic but far worse fate?

[Tom Houlihan]

The considerations of what would have happened to Japan are commendable, but one needs to consider that the government of Japan was the aggressor.

The mindset of the average Japanese citizen in those days is something that most occidentals can never fully comprehend. Beyond that, they were spoonfed information that led them to believe that they were in fact the victims of aggression, imperialist or otherwise.

Had Operation Olympic gone off as planned, virtually every Japanese, male and female, young and old, would have done their duty to the Emperor, and somehow contributed to the defense of their homeland. The estimates of US casualties vary, but there is no doubt they would have been horrendous.

The object in war is to use your resources to defeat the enemy, while minimizing your own losses. The decision to drop the first bomb was the correct one. When the Japanese government seemed less than convinced, dropping the second was legitimate, even if it was not entirely necessary. Although the effects were horrifying, the effects of a protracted campaign could well have been worse.

Too, I'm willing to be that no one involved with the Manhattan Project fully comprehended the devastating and long lasting effects of those bombs.

I'd like to point out that even today, what happened is not fully understood in Japan. I visited the A-Bomb Museum in Hiroshima back in '97. According to what is presented there, an American plane appeared one morning, and for no apparent reason, wiped out the city. There was nothing to indicate that the Japanese had started a war, and that the Americans were trying to end it. The museum made it look like the Bomb was an isolated incident!

That evening, when we got back to the base, we asked the bartender at the Staff Club, who was a Japanese national, some questions about the war. He had never heard of Pearl Harbor. He didn't know about China. The Japanese public schools were rather selective in what they taught about the 1930s and '40s.

[gao_yixing]

As a Chinese, I still hate what Japanese did in the war and some of them don't admit the fact nowadays.
In my opinion, it's necessary to drop the two bombs, esp. the second one in Nagasaki.
After the first drop, Japnese military leaders thought that Americans only got one bomb and it seemed that they didn't want to surrender unless U.S. dropped another one.
Japanese civilian at that time knew little, even nothing about how was the war going on. It would be impossible without A-Bombs for Japanese surrender. And many more civilians would lose their lives even not knowing why.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

not neccesary. At that time, Japan was militarrily, politically and economically on it's knees. The Tokyo firebombings did far more damage than the atom bombs. The US could just have maintained the blockade and starved out Japan. Less deaths. The Atomic bomb was basically a coup de grace to a collapsed nation. By then every big city in Japan has already been reduced to mostly a heap of ruins.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Helmut Von Moltke

not neccesary....The US could just have maintained the blockade and starved out Japan. Less deaths.

Perhaps. The bombings resulted in an estimated 200,000-250,000 deaths between them. I think many more than that might have had to die by starvation before Japan would surrender, if they would consider surrender at all. Remember, this was not a culture that believed in surrender. They were prepared to fight for their islands inch by inch and to arm their populace to do just that. Commonly used estimates at the time were that in an invasion the US would suffer about 500,000 casualties (estimates ranged from very low numbers to almost 2,000,000 - see Casualty Projections for the Invasion of Japan; Kyushu, 1945; Truman). Judging by how the tenacity of Japanese soldiers, those were not unreasonable estimates.

I voted that they were necessary, and that while cruel, did actually serve several purposes. They ended the war, they showed the world the real danger of atomic warfare, and they saved Allied lives. I make no apology for the fact that Imperial Japan had been embarked on a war of expansion and had committed many atrocities in areas that they occupied. One can argue whether US policy provoked Japan into war (it surely did) but it also is historical fact that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war, invaded the Philippines and southeast Asia, raped and killed many innocent Chinese in Nanjing and elsewhere, mistreated prisoners of war, and forced women to work in "comfort stations". Sadly, this was the fate that the Emperor and the militarists had wrought upon their own populace. If it meant saving an equivalent number of Allied lives then there is no question in my mind of what was "necessary".

[gao_yixing]

Originally Posted by Jim O

They ended the war, they showed the world the real danger of atomic warfare, and they saved Allied lives.

It can't be so right. The 2 bombs even contributed in Cold War.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by gao_yixing

It can't be so right. The 2 bombs even contributed in Cold War.

I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion. But even if it were so the Cold War concluded with the collapse of Soviet imposed regimes in Eastern Europe and the break up of the USSR itself. Those, to me, were generally good outcomes and argue that the US "won" the Cold War. So why then is that a bad thing?

[gao_yixing]

Originally Posted by Jim O

I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion. But even if it were so the Cold War concluded with the collapse of Soviet imposed regimes in Eastern Europe and the break up of the USSR itself. Those, to me, were generally good outcomes and argue that the US "won" the Cold War. So why then is that a bad thing?

The Cold War was always "cold" because of these 2 bombs. Statesmen from both sides realize the importance of rationality.
That's what I mean.