It is idiotic to second guess astute and far-sighted planners based on hindsight knowledge of contingent events. I think dropping of the bomb on Japan was the correct and justifiable decision based on the various imperatives facing the US in 1945. Remember soviet union was coming into the war against Japan.

1. US understood she faced a very strong soviet geopolitical and military position in europe.

2. Patton's moronic braggadocio aside, US has reason to suspect she faced substantial chance of defeat should soviet union decide to test the issue right then and drive the western allies off of European continent.

3. The US was at the very zenith of her strength and war waging potential in 1945. Britain is completely exhausted and would be more a burden than a help in the pacific. The us would bear the brunt of any bloody war to conquer japan proper. A long grueling fight on Japanese home island would only sap American strength while the soviet union recovers hers.

4. Soviet union may not make any major invasion of Japan proper, but she doesn't need to. much of Japan's critical war industry was relocated to Manchuria out of the reach of US B-29 bombers during war. Prolonged us preoccupation with landwar in Japan would enable soviet union to occupy Manchuria for prolonged periods, possibly either annexing Manchuria, or set up her own puppet in Manchuria, but definitely greatly strengthening soviet position on the Asian mainland.

5. So if the war with Japan does not end immediately, then for every day it lasts, American strength would decline, American capacity to act in Europe and elsewhere in asia would decline, while soviet union would recover in strength, benefit from appropriated German and Japanese resources under her control, and expand her freedom of action in both Asia and Europe.

So it was an absolute imperative for the US to obtain a favorable end to war with Japan immediately. The fact that Japan might seem to be ready to surrender is neither here nor there. The possibility of Japan extending war on even for a few month through foot dragging, internal discussion, haggling over the details, etc is to be forestalled if at all possible whatever the humanitarian cost.

Furthermore, opportunity should be exploited to demonstrate clearly to the soviet union that the US possess tools to thwart soviet military power despite soviet military advantages in Europe, which at the time is of vastly greater importance than Asia.

So dropping the bomb was the right decision under the circumstances.

What far-sighted planners are we talking about here?

The state department and war departments both of whose officials clearly understood that the Russian and American postwar interest are dismetrically opposite, and yet the then current administration had to work with the then widespread public perception to the contrary that had been assiduously cultivated during the war. They have understood this as far back as 1942. Long before Stalingrad memo were already flying around clearly anticipating that soviet union would end the war immensely strong in Europe, that Britain would end the war an spent force unable to provide any sort of meaningful counterweight to the soviets, and the war in the pacific is likely to drag on for a long while (until 1948) after the war in Europe ends, and some means must be found to offset the further gain in soviet strength while the US is tied down with Japan after the European war.

Until the advantage of the atomic bomb, the best the US could come up with offsetting soviet strength in Europe while us is preoccupied with Japan was to try to get the Russians bogged down in Japan as well. This was clearly not ideal as Russians could clearly help themselves with Japanese possessions in Asia proper while doing little to actually shorten the war in the Japanese home islands.

So the atom bomb must have seemed like a god sent to forstall any lengthening of the war, which for the us is lose lose.

This is a fascinating topic, excellent points have been made on all sides. I'm inclined to think that the bombings were both immoral and necessary. With the Cold War brewing, the US wanted to end the fighting with the total submission of Japan to the West, not the USSR. Just look at what happened after the bombings, we sent MacArthur to Japan to write their constitution and totally dismantle their military. That, I think, was the US's goal, and this could only be accomplished by an unconditional surrender of Japan. It's arguable that Japan would have surrendered under threat of the combined Ally forces, but it wouldn't necessarily have been an unconditional surrender. Without unconditional surrender the divinity of the Japanese emperor would have remained intact which would have undermined the US's goals. I think to understand Japan's point of view during WWII, one has to look at the history of Japan from it's opening to the West in 1854. Japan had a deep mistrust of the West after watching China throughout the time period leading up to and following the Opium Wars, and developed a strong admiration of Western Imperialism. They thought the West should not have spheres of influence in Asia, that was rightfully Japan's sphere. They viewed themselves as racially superior to other Asians, and this superiority (and money, can't forget the economic value) was their justification for their imperial conquests, which were heinous and without mercy. Their goal for the outcome of WWII was a Japnese empire throughout mainland China and southern Asia, possibly even extending control over parts of the USSR. Nobody in history, even Hitler, viewed themselves as the 'bad' guy. In their minds they were fighting for what they thought was rightfully theirs to begin with. I think the idea that Japan would have resisted a mainland invasion down to the last child is accurate. Although targeting civilians is abhorrent, I simply don't see Japan giving up without a significant loss of life on all sides, without the dropping of the bombs.

The truth is the US had only 3 working bombs at the time, one was expended during the test at Almogordo, New Mexico. The other two were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a way these bombs were a bluff because with their use the US had shot our wad for the time being. If 2 bombs weren't enough, the next bomb won't be ready for many month, certainly won't be ready in time to end the war before the anticipated invasion of Japanese home Islands.

So the US had concretely planned to do speed the Japanese along to surrender by using chemical weapons on a massive scale, in defiance of our own treaty obligations, on the Japanese home Islands during fall of 1945.

The upshot is the US was willing to basically go to any length and weather any adverse world reaction in order to bring the war quickly and definitively to an end and not get bogged down in Japan while Soviet Union becomes free to act elsewhere.

In retrospect it seems fortunate Japan surrendered for it saved us from having to use chemical weapons. Otherwise we might be seriously inconvenienced when we want to affect sanctimonious horror at other people's use of "weapon of mass destruction". I mean the brass of those dictators in doing the things we meant to do on a much larger scale ourselves.


BTW, the invasion of Japan was expected to cost US half million military dead, and several million Japanese civilian dead.

You won't be saying that when Japanese meta-humans emerge and conquer the western world with their nuclear augmented super-powers led by the mighty Captain Scat.

(September 12, 2012 at 11:37 am)Chuck Wrote: BTW, the invasion of Japan was expected to cost US half million military dead, and several million Japanese civilian dead.

Nobody was looking for a repeat of Normandy.

(September 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 12, 2012 at 11:37 am)Chuck Wrote: BTW, the invasion of Japan was expected to cost US half million military dead, and several million Japanese civilian dead.

Nobody was looking for a repeat of Normandy.

It won't be. Invasion of Japan was expected to cost more American lives than the entire rest of the war put together. In fact, in anticipation of the blood bath during the invasion of Japan, the US manufactured so many purple heart medals that the supply has met the needs of all subsequent American wars from 1945 to now, and only a fraction has been used up.

Whether they were justified or not is really about guess work. Was Japan about to surrender or were they just talking to try to draw things out? If we were forced to launch a land invasion of Japan, how many lives would that cost? Would it have costed more lives than the bomb? And if Russia beat us to it, whose to say Stalin wouldn't have used it to build another Soviet satellite state? And how much did we really know about how damaging the bomb would be? Did we under estimate how damaging it would have been?

That being said, I'm just glad I wasn't the one responsible for making that decision. I'm not sure what my choice would have been. Whether or not I would have made that choice, I can understand the thinking that went into it. Hindsight is always 20/20, but when you're looking at dropping the bomb as an event that hasn't happened yet, it's a more difficult choice to make.

If they had to use the bombs, why bomb civilians? That's what I don't understand.