Should the US have Dropped "The Bombs" on Japan?

[RiffRaff]

Truman did not have to drop those bombs. The war in Europe was over, allowing the Allies to concentrate fully on Japan. Japan had lost all of the ground it had gained in the Pacific and was basically isolated back on its home territory. The classic reason taught to American high-school students is "dropping the bombs saved millions of American lives by not having to invade the Japanese islands." This is a straw man argument because it precludes other options available to the Allies other than invasion. For instance, they had the capability to establish a full blockade of Japan and just wait patiently for them to surrender due to starvation. This would have also saved millions of American lives.

Truman dropped the bombs on Japan for one major reason, although having Japan surrender was a huge happy by-product. Relations between the western nations and the Soviet Union were already beginning to deteriorate immediately after the war in Europe ended. Nobody trusted Stalin, and Stalin didn't trust the West. Truman saw Stalin as a post-war threat and used the bombs to send a message directly to Stalin: "We have nuclear weapons. We are willing to use them." Stalin received that message loud and clear, and thus began Cold War 1.0 and the biggest nuclear arms race in history.

Truman's blunder was his assumption that the US would always be the only country with nuclear weapons. Once Russia had them too, it was too late.

Experts say that World War 2 began as a direct result of how World War 1 ended. I have been making the same prediction about World War 3 for years: It will start as a direct result of how World War 2 ended. Had Truman and Churchill made an honest effort to work with Stalin and end up with an alliance that included the USSR instead of declaring it to be the new bad guy after Hitler, we wouldn't be where we are today.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Truman did not have to drop those bombs. The war in Europe was over, allowing the Allies to concentrate fully on Japan. Japan had lost all of the ground it had gained in the Pacific and was basically isolated back on its home territory. The classic reason taught to American high-school students is "dropping the bombs saved millions of American lives by not having to invade the Japanese islands." This is a straw man argument because it precludes other options available to the Allies other than invasion. For instance, they had the capability to establish a full blockade of Japan and just wait patiently for them to surrender due to starvation. This would have also saved millions of American lives.

Truman dropped the bombs on Japan for one major reason, although having Japan surrender was a huge happy by-product. Relations between the western nations and the Soviet Union were already beginning to deteriorate immediately after the war in Europe ended. Nobody trusted Stalin, and Stalin didn't trust the West. Truman saw Stalin as a post-war threat and used the bombs to send a message directly to Stalin: "We have nuclear weapons. We are willing to use them." Stalin received that message loud and clear, and thus began Cold War 1.0 and the biggest nuclear arms race in history.

Truman's blunder was his assumption that the US would always be the only country with nuclear weapons. Once Russia had them too, it was too late.

Experts say that World War 2 began as a direct result of how World War 1 ended. I have been making the same prediction about World War 3 for years: It will start as a direct result of how World War 2 ended. Had Truman and Churchill made an honest effort to work with Stalin and end up with an alliance that included the USSR instead of declaring it to be the new bad guy after Hitler, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Yes it was show for Russia. But also saved us a lot of time, money, resources, and blood. As I said before we just ended the long bloody war in Europe. I don't think anyone wanted another one in Asia fought to the very last man too.

 

[RiffRaff]

Yes it was show for Russia. But also saved us a lot of time, money, resources, and blood. As I said before we just ended the long bloody war in Europe. I don't think anyone wanted another one in Asia fought to the very last man too.

My primary point was that there were other options available to Truman that would not have required fighting to the last man. More time, more money, more resources, maybe, but not on the scale required to fight a two-front offensive war. Parking warships off the coast of Japan to cut them off from the rest of the world would not have required huge amounts of money or resources. But granted, it would have taken months to have the desired effect on the Japanese.

I'm sure that, at that time in history, using those bombs seemed like the right decision. I'm not faulting Truman for it. But in hindsight, using those bombs put the world on a course toward nuclear Armageddon, which we are closer to now than at any other point in nuclear history with the possible exceptions of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Able Archer '83.

In an alternate timeline where those bombs were not dropped on Japan and the USSR became partners with the West, all of those trillions of dollars spent on building nuclear weapons could have been put into feeding the world and space exploration instead. We could have launched mankind's first interstellar mission by now.

The "Millions of American lives were saved by dropping those bombs" story is American-written propaganda. Don't buy into it, because there were other alternatives that would have also saved millions of American lives.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

For instance, they had the capability to establish a full blockade of Japan and just wait patiently for them to surrender due to starvation.

Time, money, resources, and some blood would still be wasted as it could take months.

Secondly starvation alikes of which you speak of to cause surrender or collapse would probably take more lives then the two bombs dropped.

The "Millions of American lives were saved by dropping those bombs" story is American-written propaganda

Well yea we would of likly choosed scorch earth policy and just carpet bomb the whole Island. Or a blockade which would of been even more deadly and more costly for Japan. Millions of American lives where never in danger as implied.

I look at it as a time & money/resources aspect for us the Americans as we didnt start or ask to be in the war in the first place.

 

[RiffRaff]

I look at it as a time & money/resources aspect for us the Americans as we didnt start or ask to be in the war in the first place.

I'm not really arguing the merits of using the bombs; I'm just suggesting that Post-World War II history might have seen a little more international cooperation and fewer proxy wars had they not been used.

 

[Obreid]

In an alternate timeline where those bombs were not dropped on Japan and the USSR became partners with the West,

That is an alternative timeline though that is unprovable.
Another unprovable timeline might have been Truman Didn’t and a conflict between the west and Russia broke out later in Europe or for Japan and then the weapons might have been used against Russia.

We were already carpet bombing Japanese cities with incendiary bombs killing 10’s of thousands.
Nothing was going to change the policy right or wrong of attacking Japan till they surrender.

It could also be argued that dropping fatman and little boy in a war and the world seeing the destructive power of them could have been the object lesson that prevented them from since ever being used.
Mostly it just really doesn’t matter. There development and stockpile would have continued either way.

 

[Kiteh]

How many of you know that the US and anti-communist Japan have been military allies since 1854; that we fought on the same side in WW1; that we occupied Siberia together with the UK after the during the Russian revolution; that FDR(D) attacked Japan in 1933 for Stalin and Mao via covert warfare in East Asia; that after his election to a third term, Japan finally launched limited surgical counter-attacks in the Pacific to stop the covert war; or that Eisenhower(R) re-armed Japan in 1953 to stop communism? We're still military allies today, and Japan develops and provides theater antiballistic missile protection in concert with US Forces Japan at sea. Nuking allied civilians is a Hell of a way to treat your friends.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Nuking allied civilians is a Hell of a way to treat your friends.

With friends like 1940's Japan, who needs enemies?

 

[Obreid]

How many of you know that the US and anti-communist Japan have been military allies since 1854; that we fought on the same side in WW1; that we occupied Siberia together with the UK after the during the Russian revolution; that FDR(D) attacked Japan in 1933 for Stalin and Mao via covert warfare in East Asia; that after his election to a third term, Japan finally launched limited surgical counter-attacks in the Pacific to stop the covert war; or that Eisenhower(R) re-armed Japan in 1953 to stop communism? We're still military allies today, and Japan develops and provides theater antiballistic missile protection in concert with US Forces Japan at sea. Nuking allied civilians is a Hell of a way to treat your friends.

So what’s your point? You paint that like it’s some kind of conspiracy to turn Japan in a vassal state.
It was a war and bad shit happens all the time. Which is worse getting nuked or getting gut shot and left to bleed to death in the cold dark rain.

Every military action taken in war is violent and it always has terrible consequences.
It’s all bad and all nations and most cultures have proved themselves of being quite capable of it.
I’m sorry I just don’t care if we nuked Japan. I’ve never given a second thought.
Now should and under what conditions they might be used in the future that’s different.
I am not going to accept esoteric imposed guilt because of the past actions of my nation.

 

[Librarylady]

I'd just like to point out that that in addition to saving the lives of soldiers, dropping the bombs saved the lives of countless civilians being held captive by the Japanese in occupied territories. The deaths of the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrible -- but look at the deaths of civilians in Nanking, and other places the Japanese invaded.

 

[Kiteh]

With friends like 1940's Japan, who needs enemies?

You do. I'm Japanese from Japan and served in uniform defending US Forces Japan from Russia, Korea and China. Democrats have used you for socialist cannon fodder for so long you don't even know who your principal military Allies are. Have a nice day.

 

[Kiteh]

I'd just like to point out that that in addition to saving the lives of soldiers, dropping the bombs saved the lives of countless civilians being held captive by the Japanese in occupied territories. The deaths of the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrible -- but look at the deaths of civilians in Nanking, and other places the Japanese invaded.

Commie propaganda.

 

[RiffRaff]

Commie propaganda.

It's not, actually. The brutality of Japanese forces against those they conquered or captured is well documented. Nothing to be ashamed of; the US has its own brutal history to deal with, as do most nations.

As a new member, I'm going to remind you to keep your posts civil and to not make personal attacks on other members. You can argue and debate the facts to your hearts' content, but if it starts to become personal I will shut it down.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

You do. I'm Japanese from Japan and served in uniform defending US Forces Japan from Russia, Korea and China. Democrats have used you for socialist cannon fodder for so long you don't even know who your principal military Allies are. Have a nice day.

This is opposed to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops firing on American soldiers.

Yeah, I know Russia and China weren't friends of the U.S. during WWII. But don't let's pretend Japan wasn't an aggressive, empire expanding country for whatever reason they had.

I'm thankful for your service. But in WWII, Japan wasn't protecting US forces. Japan was firing on the enemy.

No one is questioning Japan's alliance today. We're talking Imperial Japan almost a century ago. Completely different generation.

 

[Saguenay]

I am not going to accept esoteric imposed guilt because of the past actions of my nation

So, if I use your logic, the attack on Pearl Harbor was okay, the attack of September 11, 2001 too. Your speech doesn't hold water.
According to you, we should forget what the USA did, but we should remember what other nations have done

 

[Obreid]

So, if I use your logic, the attack on Pearl Harbor was okay, the attack of September 11, 2001 too. Your speech doesn't hold water.
According to you, we should forget what the USA did, but we should remember what other nations have done

No I’m not going to accept esoteric obscure historic claims of wrongs.
There like flies buzzing around for attention but that’s really it
Mostly you pick a side and live or die with it.
Once that’s done doesn’t really matter does it.

 

[Throwaway]

So, if I use your logic, the attack on Pearl Harbor was okay, the attack of September 11, 2001 too. Your speech doesn't hold water.
According to you, we should forget what the USA did, but we should remember what other nations have done

By the logic of people who support the A-bomb attacks 9/11 would have been good only if they hadn’t fucked up the Pentagon and White House attacks. Taking out Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz would have stopped the Iraq War before it even happened, saving around 600,000 innocent lives, as opposed to the four digits who died on 9/11 itself.

 

[william]

The plan to invade the Japanese home islands in 1945 and 1946 would have been the deadliest campaign in military history costing nearly 1 million Allied dead and up to 10 million Japanese. “The U.S. military, expecting the resistance of a ‘fanatically hostile population’, were making preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties.”
This is why the bombs were dropped. If they were not used there would have been an invasion. The plans were made and the troops were gathered for it.

 

[RiffRaff]

Well the USA has used 2 atomic bombs (ww2) are they in your opinion the bad guys?

Yes, actually. Their use was not necessary to end the war. Japan was getting ready to surrender after the Soviet Union declared war on them.

 

[bartok]

Yes, actually. Their use was not necessary to end the war. Japan was getting ready to surrender after the Soviet Union declared war on them.

Are we sure of that? During the WW2 Japan changed its military doctrine, imposing the absolute prohibition to surrender. Furthermore, it takes 2 bombs to surrender, not one. Sure US would have win even without the nukes, but with heavy losses.