Did We Need to Nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't think one can overstate the impact of the Soviet invasion. The Japanese had very bad memories from the border war, where they still held up reasonably well. But the Soviet army they faced this time was much, much more powerful (literally the most powerful army in history at the time) and they must have gotten the message that a ground invasion would be a rapid advance and utter slaughter, not an honorable war to the last man standing.

 

[Segnosaur]

there seems to be the common assumption that Japan had to be forced to surrender as quickly as possible.
For the security of the US, this was not the case.

If you are suggesting that U.S. territory was not at any risk at that point in the war, you may be correct.

But as others have pointed out:
- A prolonged war still put American soldiers at risk. Even if Japan couldn't attack the U.S. mainland, Americans might still die.

- The U.S. was not the only country involved in the conflict... prolonging the war would have resulted in more deaths of (for example) Chinese civilians, since parts of that country were still controlled by Japan

 

[Wudang]

Link to previous discussion with much data from Gawdzilla Sama and Corsair
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293416&highlight=nagasaki&page=6

 

[Giz]

Another important aspect wrt the Soviet invasion was that the Cabinet had hoped they would be able to negotiate peace terms through Moscow. The loss of this option must have been a serious blow.

Just a note on the "peace terms". The terms that (some factions in) the Japanese government were looking to get were wholly unrealistic. They were along the lines of:
- Japanese government remains unchanged
- Japan demobilises its armed forces at it's own discretion
- Japan keeps occupied territory

This is equivalent to the Germans in early 45 asking if they could have peace if Hitler stayed in power, they kept Holland, they'd disband the panzer divisions when they felt like it...

The peace terms that Japan was seeking were never going to be even vaguely acceptable and had no chance of leading anywhere... with or without a Soviet invasion.

 

[Belz...]

The subject is not debatable.

Then why did you bump the thread? Did you expect to just post your opinion and that no one would respond?

I happen to agree with you on the topic, but it doesn't seem like you had good reasons to bump the thread.

 

[jimbob]

Link to previous discussion with much data from Gawdzilla Sama and Corsair
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293416&highlight=nagasaki&page=6

A couple of key ones.

Both cities were the military headquarters for their prefects. One of the bombs went off almost directly over 5,000 IJA troops lined up for inspection. The bombs ended the war, saving the lives of millions of people. If you care for ALL the people in east Asia then stopping the people who insist on keeping the killing going is a good way to show you care about them.

In the end the whole debate about the Atomic Bombs really depends on how close the Japanese Government was to surrender when the Bombs were dropped. IMHO,not very close. Hell,even after Nagasaki the Military were still opposed to Surrender,and after the decison was made to surrender, there was a right wing coup that damn near suceeded.

And more Japanese would have died if the bombs had not been dropped;either through starvation and disease as the blockade..which was almost total,went on, or when the Allies invaded.
BTW, IMHO,a lot of these types of arguments are nothing more but the old "Moral Equvilency"...ie,that the Allies were not much better then the Axis..arguments being made,

The book "Human Smoke" is this argument made to the point of idiocy. One of the worst works of "history" I have ever read.

The prestige made a good point too (I would say that, ebcause I have said something similar.

I would say that the debate depends on how close the Japanese Government was perceived to be to surrender.

How close they really were is an appeal to hindsight and thus inappropriate when judging the actions taken at the time.

But more importantly, I think the debate depends on the principles for using force in war: Military necessity, distinction, and proportionality.

Military necessity has been addressed upthread. The cities were legitimate military targets according to the way of war at the time. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_necessity

Distinction is the principle by which belligerents must distinguish between military and civilian personnel, and treat them differently in some contexts. This has also been much debated in this thread. Some introductory info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(law)

Proportionality is the principle that the amount of force used must be proportional to the military value of the target. Note that this is not a principle that force should be proportional to the enemy's force. The enemy's strength doesn't matter here, only the military value of defeating them in proportion to the civilian lives put at risk in the process. If no civilian lives are at risk, the principle of proportionality under international law allows you to defeat a ragtag band of rebels with a massive artillery barrage. More about proportionality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#International_humanitarian_law

The way I see it, there were at least two sound military reasons to use nuclear weapons on Japan, and several beneficial results that also have merit. So for me, choosing a justification for the attacks was never a question of "either, or", but rather "yes, and".

Yes it destroyed significant military targets with proportional force, and it demoralized the enemy and hastened their surrender, and it gave military planners good info on the effects of the new weapon, and it demonstrated the new deterrent to the Soviet Union. What's not to like?

In addition, the surrender speech mentions the bombs which suggests that they were important in effecting the surrender.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Just a note on the "peace terms". The terms that (some factions in) the Japanese government were looking to get were wholly unrealistic. They were along the lines of:
- Japanese government remains unchanged
- Japan demobilises its armed forces at it's own discretion
- Japan keeps occupied territory

This is equivalent to the Germans in early 45 asking if they could have peace if Hitler stayed in power, they kept Holland, they'd disband the panzer divisions when they felt like it...

The peace terms that Japan was seeking were never going to be even vaguely acceptable and had no chance of leading anywhere... with or without a Soviet invasion.

Mostly true. The Emperor (in private discussion with the foreign minister) and the less-radical half of the supreme war council certainly considered the Potsdam terms more or less acceptable, but their opinions held little weight against Anami et al..

 

[Wolrab]

I think we should nuke them again in retaliation for Fukushima killing 70 million and making the west coast a wasteland.