Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

[Shroom Man 777]

I'm in a debate and I need fuel, since it's just me and another guy against a shitload of 'oh noes! t3h nukes are evil!'. I need The Shep here.

My arguement is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300k, which was a mere fraction of what would've happened in a ground invasion, and therefore justifiable, therefore much more reasonable than the other alternative.

[Gandalf]

That's the jist of it.

A blockade would have plunged the whole island into famine.

And (from what I've read here), most of the Japanese forces would not have accepted the initial surrender before the nukes.

It was the least of all available evils.

[Darth Wong]

That argument, of course, assumes that the ultra-short delay between the two bombs could not possibly have been extended to give them more time to think about it before killing off a second city.

[Joe]

The best way thing to do is to try and get your opponent to an give you an alternative course of action that would have saved more lives without using the atomic bomb, which he won't be able to do.

[MKSheppard]

30 million dead of starvation by 1946.

Remember, Japan's rice harvest of 1945 had utterly failed, dooming
millions to starvation if they hadn't capitulated.

[Sarevok]

300k ? That's a bit too high.

Anyway the use of nuclear of weapons was necessary. As you put it a ground invasion of Japan would have killed many more people than the nukes did. Just look at the fanatical resistence the Japaneese put up in the Island invasions in the final days of the war.

[MKSheppard]

That argument, of course, assumes that the ultra-short delay between the two bombs could not possibly have been extended to give them more time to think about it before killing off a second city.

The ultrashort delay showed the Japanese, that yes, we had more than one,
and we were going to annihilate a city as soon as each device arrived on
Tinan, until their utter annihilation or surrender.

And more Model 1561s were coming off the production line every month
in 1945. If Japan doesn't surrender, she starves or is nuked into oblivion.

[Perinquus]

Consider also that just before the bombs were dropped, the Soviets had committed to take part in any land invasion of the Japanese home islands. Had this taken place, there would today most likely be a communist North Japan, and a democratic South Japan, just as there is a communist North Korea, and a democratic South Korea, and just as there was, until recently a communist East Germany, and a democratic West Germany. Consider also the depressed state of the economies of the communist halves of these countries, and further the not only economically depressed, but dangerously unstable nature of North Korea, and the ominous possibilities inherent in a similar state occupying the northern half of Japan.

The dropping of the atomic bombs pre-empted all of this, and made the planned Soviet participation in an invasion of Japan unecessary - ultimately sparing the Japanese people many decades of political oppression and perhaps even loss of life (over and above that which would have been incurred in an invasion that is).

[Mayabird]

Estimates were a million American casualties, minimum, and Japanese casualties would be just about everybody. People out in the country were being trained to make bamboo spears so they could go down fighting to the last woman and child, for goodness sakes. It would have been mayhem. Japan was going crazy at the end of the war, but were still totally obedient to orders, including orders to surrender. The bombs ended up saving a hell of a lot more lives than were lost.

[Darth Wong]

And all of this would have come to pass if they waited just one more week before dropping the second bomb? They were bomb-happy.

[frigidmagi]

Hell they were making colorful cermatic grenades for children to run up and use on American Troops. The Bright Colors were suppose to relax the troops and make the kid more eager to do it I suppose.

[Shroom Man 777]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html <--- Someone posted this. I countered that even though Japan had no more airforce and that its navy was blasted to shit, they would've still pulled off a Stalingrad, a Stalingrad that would've been worse than the original, thanks to their legions of fanatic followers of the god-Emperor.

[Ma Deuce]

300k ? That's a bit too high.

That number includes people who died later from delayed effects from the bombs, including radiation poisioning and leukemia...

[Frank Hipper]

And all of this would have come to pass if they waited just one more week before dropping the second bomb? They were bomb-happy.

Yes, and it was effective.
There's no right about it, a lot of what's being discussed is hindsight in action, but the bombs ended the war, and quickly.

[Howedar]

I don't believe there is any question that the first bomb was necessary, but from where I stand I'm not sure about the timing on the second device (or its necessity period). I'm also not sure that we needed to annihilate Hiroshima, I've always been of the opinion that we might have been able to blow the living shit out of a military base or something, preferably one that we could literally remove from the map.

[Arrow]

And all of this would have come to pass if they waited just one more week before dropping the second bomb? They were bomb-happy.

Regardless of if they were bomb happy or not, the Japanese government was not about to surrender. Even after the first bomb, the Japanese still half-heartly attempted to attain better terms through Russia under the neutrality pact (as if that was going to go anywhere), while the Japanese military was still going full throttle with plans for defending against a full scale invasion of Kyushu (sp). The Japanese leadership also believed the US had only the one bomb and would not have another for sometime. Even after the second bombing, diaries show that a number of senior officers wanted to continue the war, and many officers even revolted when the Emperor announced the surrender (without using the word "surrender", I might add). At the core, the Japanese weren't going to surrender without both bombs - they planned to kill as many invaders as possible, regardless of the cost of themselves, to break Allied morale and secure terms that would allow them declare that they had won an honorable peace. Japan's militistic culture could accept nothing less. And only the realization that the US could annihilate Japan without invasion broke that belief.

"Downfall" by Richard B. Frank is an excellent book covering this topic. Most other history books gloss this over.

Now, back the OP, the alternatives (which have already been stated) were:
1) Russia, which had already captured two Japanese northern islands, would had swept most of the country before the US could invade. The US and Britain already saw what the USSR was doing in postwar eastern Europe, and found this unacceptable.
2) More importantly, the next target of the US bombing campaign was the Japanese railroads. This would had stop the flow remaining food supply, causing mass starvation and killing millions.
3) And the core factor in the decision to use the bombs, US intelligence was predicting causalties of about 1 million troops, with millions Japanese causalties as well. One high-ranking Japanese general had declared he was ready to scarifice 20 million Japanese to repell the invasion (the Japanese still enough aircraft and small boats hidden away to pull of some major kamakize missions against the US fleet).

As a side note, Admirals King and Nimitz were ready to sabotage the invasion plan by reassigning ships - they knew the numbers and were not happy, to say the least.

In light of these numbers, the ~150K that died from the atomic bombs is the much lesser of two/three evils - many more would had been killed by invasion or by Soviet occupation. No doubt about it.

[Arrow]

I don't believe there is any question that the first bomb was necessary, but from where I stand I'm not sure about the timing on the second device (or its necessity period). I'm also not sure that we needed to annihilate Hiroshima, I've always been of the opinion that we might have been able to blow the living shit out of a military base or something, preferably one that we could literally remove from the map.

At that time, the whole country was a military base. Civilians were being organized into combat units, and very many homes had machine tools to produce war materials (damage assessment photographs show the tools were the only thing left standing after fire bomb raids). Don't forgot that Japan was ruled by the military, with many of those rulers being far, far more fanatical than any muslim extremist and holding far, far more power.

[Joe]

The second bomb was dropped, for a number of reasons, the least of which being to send a strong message to the Russians, but also the least of which was because the Japanese simply did not get the fucking message with the first one, and we had to hit them again when they were reeling to let them know we were serious about this "unconditional surrender" thing. Hindsight only strengthens the case for the second atomic bomb, because even after Nagasaki the Japanese STILL came close to not surrendering.

[Howedar]

I don't believe there is any question that the first bomb was necessary, but from where I stand I'm not sure about the timing on the second device (or its necessity period). I'm also not sure that we needed to annihilate Hiroshima, I've always been of the opinion that we might have been able to blow the living shit out of a military base or something, preferably one that we could literally remove from the map.

At that time, the whole country was a military base. Civilians were being organized into combat units, and very many homes had machine tools to produce war materials (damage assessment photographs show the tools were the only thing left standing after fire bomb raids). Don't forgot that Japan was ruled by the military, with many of those rulers being far, far more fanatical than any muslim extremist and holding far, far more power.

I was thinking something analagous to Truk (although I think Truk itself was trashed by the time the nukes came around).

[Darth Wong]

The argument that the first bomb was inadequate presumes that the Japanese failure to quickly adjust its thinking to this new situation indicates that it would never have done so. What evidence is there to back this up besides this "they were all insane" implication? The fact that some in the government opposed it? Of course; that is normal for any change in policy. But it does not prove that the change would never have happened.

Why not give them an ultimatum for dropping the second bomb two weeks after the first? They would probably evacuate the targeted city, thus greatly reducing the loss of life, but your demonstration of your willingness to use these things would still be conducted, and I doubt they would blow off the next ultimatum which would not bother naming a city.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, keep this thread in mind the next time one of you says that "the end justifies the means" is an unethical philosophy in some SLAM thread.

[Arrow]

I was thinking something analagous to Truk (although I think Truk itself was trashed by the time the nukes came around).

Eh, doubtful. The general that visited Hiroshima the days after the bombing told the government he though there was no way to win the war now that the US had atomic bombs, and the government basically ignored him. And that was with the annihiliation of an entire city. A military base would had been underwhelming, and may have even stiffen Japanese resolve, since the US would be "too weak" to stomach killing civilians (even in light of the fire bomb raids, which killed far more people).

[Typhonis 1]

Actually the Japnese lost more people in Tokyo during its foirebombing I think. It sent a message to the one man in Japan that COULD order a surrender and he did it.Hirohito .


As for a Russaian invasuiion of Japan...How would the Reds support it?I din`t think the Russians in WW2 could land troops sucsefully on the Japanese home islands.

[Mayabird]

Sometimes the ends do justify the means. And Japan was fanatically insane, though very loyal and obedient to orders from up top. Really, only the leadership (mostly the Emperor) had to be convinced that Japan was doomed otherwise, and everyone else would obey their commands. Vaporizing two cities in quick succession does that to even the most crazy of fanatics at the top (people usually don't get to the top for being total idiots). They surrender, and everyone gets ready to be raped, pillaged, and murdered (which of course didn't happen). That's obedient fanaticism for you. My oba-chan (grandma) was in her twenties at the time and remembers it well.

[Ma Deuce]

1) Russia, which had already captured two Japanese northern islands, would had swept most of the country before the US could invade. The US and Britain already saw what the USSR was doing in postwar eastern Europe, and found this unacceptable.

Taking over Sakhalin (which the Soviets already controlled half of anyway) and the 3 southern Kuril Islands (which were relativly lightly defended) would have been a helluvalot different from invading over the Japanese Home Islands: The Soviet naval and amphib forces in the Pacific (the latter category also applied to the entire USSR) were frankly miniscule in 1945, and an invasion of Japan would have been horrendously costly for even the US, whose naval and amphibious capabilities were greater than those of any other nation by a huge margin. In short, there was no danger of the Soviets (successfully) invading Japan in 1945...