Did We Need to Nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[NoahFence]

May sound callous here, but if we didn't use them when we did, someone would have used more powerful ones later.

I think seeing the power in action may have sobered up the world.

Who knows what this turd in the office now will do though.

 

[applecorped]

Need? Debatable, obviously.

Want? Hell yes! Gotta get a return on the investment.

 

[Fizil]

General Anami was sure they could only have produced one bomb. They didn't know about plutonium.

I think the point is that the argument is that they were ready to surrender. But they were given an ultimatum, and rejected it. Hiroshima was bombed, and they had a second opportunity to surrender, but they still didn't even after that horror.

All those facts undermine the initial argument because if the government were really "ready to surrender" they would have done so. The only reason to call the "bluff" of more such bombs, is if you planned to continue to fight.

Now that is what I think the point of the question you were responding to was. My own personal opinion is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, and there are to many conflicting accounts of who knew what when for me to make any rational judgement as to whether they were in any way morally justifiable given the times. Projecting my own modern morality back, it was certainly a horrible war crime, made even more so by the after-effects on the survivors.

 

[smartcooky]

I think the point is that the argument is that they were ready to surrender. But they were given an ultimatum, and rejected it. Hiroshima was bombed, and they had a second opportunity to surrender, but they still didn't even after that horror.

All those facts undermine the initial argument because if the government were really "ready to surrender" they would have done so. The only reason to call the "bluff" of more such bombs, is if you planned to continue to fight.

Now that is what I think the point of the question you were responding to was. My own personal opinion is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, and there are to many conflicting accounts of who knew what when for me to make any rational judgement as to whether they were in any way morally justifiable given the times. Projecting my own modern morality back, it was certainly a horrible war crime, made even more so by the after-effects on the survivors.

There were two factions within the Japanese War Cabinet.

The first faction favoured surrender, but wanted a mediated settlement (with USSR leader Stalin to be the mediator). They also wanted want to place conditions on that surrender, e.g. a they wanted the Emperor of Japan to remain a position of real power, in effect they wanted no change in Japan's system of government. Another condition they wanted, insisted on by General Anami, was that there was to be no occupation of Japan. Both of these conditions were rejected outright by the Allies... unconditional surrender was the bottom line, nothing else was acceptable

The second faction were the military hardliners, led by General Anami, who wanted to fight on with the intent of inflicting so many casualties on the Allies that they might offer more lenient terms.

 

[theprestige]

The USA did not need nuclear weapons to bomb Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki since the USA could have bombed these cities in the same way that the USA bombed several other Japanese cities.

Effectively destroying high-value military targets, such as headquarters of the Second General Army at Hiroshima, communication centers, etc. by means of conventional area bombing would have required a huge number of planes and bombs. It would have necessarily caused similar widespread destruction.

Once the allies were resolved to bomb Japanese cities as part of their strategy to defeat Japan, it made sense to do it as efficiently as possible. One plane, with one bomb, made a lot more sense than hundreds upon hundreds of planes, and tens of thousands of bombs.

 

[Loss Leader]

In The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, Gar Alperovitz, a former research fellow at Harvard and King's College and a research scientist at the University of Maryland, makes a powerful case that the U.S. did not need to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that Truman and other senior officials knew that the Japanese were prepared to surrender weeks before Hiroshima.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in part, fueled by racism and the absolute failure to understand the Japanese people. At the same time, Japanese desire to take over the Pacific was fueled by their own racist views.

Had either side bothered to better understand the other, all sorts of terrible things might have been avoided.

Historically, the fact that some of the younger Japanese military leaders were ready to surrender doesn't change the fact that the hard-liners weren't. There was no way of knowing (absent a spy in the Japanese war room) which side would win out. American soldiers had actually witnessed Japanese women jumping to their deaths rather than surrender and the ferocity with which Japan defended the Pacific islands didn't exactly give anyone the opinion that an attack on Japan proper would be at all easy.

We still haven't learned these lessons. W. and his neo-cons had this blind belief that Iraqi people wanted American-style democracy despite the fact that they knew there were 3 major Iraqi sects who just hated each other.

 

[smartcooky]

One plane, with one bomb, made a lot more sense than hundreds upon hundreds of planes, and tens of thousands of bombs.

Not to mention the psychological impact that one plane, one bomb, city gone would have had on the Japanese.

If Japan had not surrendered by the 16th of August, there was a third bomb ready to be shipped out to Tinian Island to be dropped, probably on Kokura, Niigata or Tokyo, on the 19th of August, as this memo shows...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/20etvium2l7emm3/3rdBomb.pdf?dl=0

The US were able to produce a bomb about every 10 days if necessary.

 

[The Big Dog]

The use of the atomic bombs was a means to a simple end: bring the war to an end as quickly as possible.

Had it gone on, it would have been another 250,000 American lives, at least a million Japanese lives, and the Russians sitting on more prime Japanese real estate than they already claim.

The claim that it was racism is an utter lie.

 

[Wolrab]

Personally I feel we should nuke them again in retaliation for Fukushima turning California into a lifeless wasteland.

 

[Fizil]

Not to mention the psychological impact that one plane, one bomb, city gone would have had on the Japanese.

If Japan had not surrendered by the 16th of August, there was a third bomb ready to be shipped out to Tinian Island to be dropped, probably on Kokura, Niigata or Tokyo, on the 19th of August, as this memo shows...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/20etvium2l7emm3/3rdBomb.pdf?dl=0

The US were able to produce a bomb about every 10 days if necessary.

What I find interesting about that memo is the attitude toward the possibility of a 3rd bomb being used to encourage surrender was considered unlikely and rather useless. If they weren't going to surrender after two bombs, they were considering that it would be preferable to stockpile for tactical usage instead of the strategic use the first two were put to.

Honestly I'm glad it never came to that. The long term collateral damage on both sides if the then ill-understood nuclear weapons were used in tactical operations would have been horrific.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

@OP: I suggest getting hold of, say, copies of the International Herald Tribune from 1990-1995. You can then follow the little paragraph summary provided therein for news from 50 years earlier. Just by reading that blurb, a concentrated day-by-day-by-bloody-day account, one gets a much better feel for the real fatigue and numbing horror of that war, plus the attitudes and policies of the players. Much better than a history book that lacks this blow-by-blow feel. My take is that in that context, and with what was known at the time, yes, the bombs were the correct decision.

 

[Loss Leader]

If Japan had not surrendered by the 16th of August, there was a third bomb ready to be shipped out to Tinian Island to be dropped, probably on Kokura, Niigata or Tokyo, on the 19th of August, as this memo shows...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/20etvium2l7emm3/3rdBomb.pdf?dl=0

The US were able to produce a bomb about every 10 days if necessary.

Whatever the memo says, there is no way the US had the nuclear material to drop a bomb every ten days. Half of the stockpile we used for Fat Man and Little Boy were stolen from the Germans.

 

[theprestige]

Whatever the memo says, there is no way the US had the nuclear material to drop a bomb every ten days. Half of the stockpile we used for Fat Man and Little Boy were stolen from the Germans.

What if the memo says that between the time work began and the time the first two bombs were used, production rates had ramped up to the point where additional bombs could be produced at the rate of one every ten days?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Whatever the memo says, there is no way the US had the nuclear material to drop a bomb every ten days. Half of the stockpile we used for Fat Man and Little Boy were stolen from the Germans.

Stolen from Germans ? Where you got that ? AFAIK Fat man was 100% US produced uranium, all there ever was produced by very low-yield enriching process.
Little boy was 100% US produced plutonium made in reactors, same plutonium was used in Trinity test and more was ready for new bombs. Not sure about 10 days per bomb, I heard something like 1 month for the next bomb, but the production capacity was increasing.

 

[Border Reiver]

Whatever the memo says, there is no way the US had the nuclear material to drop a bomb every ten days. Half of the stockpile we used for Fat Man and Little Boy were stolen from the Germans.

Bit of a surprise to the Canadians.

 

[Belz...]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in part, fueled by racism and the absolute failure to understand the Japanese people.

I'm sorry but could you expand on that? I have no idea what you mean by this.


Seems to me like they understood the Japanese pretty well, since their strategy worked. And I don't see what you mean by "racism" in this case.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Stolen from Germans ? Where you got that ? AFAIK Fat man was 100% US produced uranium, all there ever was produced by very low-yield enriching process.
Little boy was 100% US produced plutonium made in reactors, same plutonium was used in Trinity test and more was ready for new bombs. Not sure about 10 days per bomb, I heard something like 1 month for the next bomb, but the production capacity was increasing.

German submarine U-234^WP

 

[Trebuchet]

@OP: I suggest getting hold of, say, copies of the International Herald Tribune from 1990-1995. You can then follow the little paragraph summary provided therein for news from 50 years earlier. Just by reading that blurb, a concentrated day-by-day-by-bloody-day account, one gets a much better feel for the real fatigue and numbing horror of that war, plus the attitudes and policies of the players. Much better than a history book that lacks this blow-by-blow feel. My take is that in that context, and with what was known at the time, yes, the bombs were the correct decision.

The OP hasn't been back since the original post. You might as well argue with your refrigerator.

 

[applecorped]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in part, fueled by racism and the absolute failure to understand the Japanese people. At the same time, Japanese desire to take over the Pacific was fueled by their own racist views.

Had either side bothered to better understand the other, all sorts of terrible things might have been avoided.

Historically, the fact that some of the younger Japanese military leaders were ready to surrender doesn't change the fact that the hard-liners weren't. There was no way of knowing (absent a spy in the Japanese war room) which side would win out. American soldiers had actually witnessed Japanese women jumping to their deaths rather than surrender and the ferocity with which Japan defended the Pacific islands didn't exactly give anyone the opinion that an attack on Japan proper would be at all easy.

We still haven't learned these lessons. W. and his neo-cons had this blind belief that Iraqi people wanted American-style democracy despite the fact that they knew there were 3 major Iraqi sects who just hated each other.

The bombing was necessary because we DID understand them

 

[dudalb]

Given the OP's political views, I suspect if a Republican had won in 1944 and had given the order to drop the bomb,the OP would be posting how necessary and right it was.