worked on two different levels

With anything I'm sure there are plenty of good points on either side. I just can't justify the bomb in that situation. I'm not sure they were fully aware of what it meant.

Completely justifiable. If the Allies had invaded Japan conventionally, the death toll would have been much higher on both sides. Besides, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (in absolute terms) not very radioactive or powerful. "Little Boy" pales in comparison to the B41, much less the Tsar Bomba.

Justifiable, but only just.

Maybe it would have been better to try just regular bombing them. Or nuking something other than cities to get the message across that if you don't surrender we're going to start nuking cities.

But still a better option than a conventional invasion, yes.

It was justified for the time and situation. Japan waiting for the second is a big argument. You can't expect the enemy to care about your population more.

Something like Dresden would be more bloody, not to mention the invasion that would have to follow.

The dreadful effect helped in establishing the doctrine of mutually assured destruction between US and SU, basically ruling out another world war for decades.

Facing that horror started the transformation of Japanese national ethos away from militarism, which was a major boost for economic and political stability of East and South East Asia.

Nasty stuff, but understandable.

All you have to do is look at Okinawa. As a new prefecture of the Japanese Empire, even though the native populace didn't consider themselves Japanese, the fighting was fierce. A full one-third of the native populace were killed. Out of 119,000 Japanese soldiers, 112,000 were killed or forever sealed in their caves. The US lost 13,000 troops and another 34,000 wounded. The invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost a projected 1 million American casualties and the near certain eradication of the Japanese race. The kicker, if those figures are not staggering enough, after Hiroshima, the Japanese government sealed off the area around the city, then sent in radio trucks to broadcast signals as if nothing had happen to the city. The atomic bombs were horrible, but 100% justifiable.

The real thing they should have done was fight the war to a stalemate to buy time to develop robot warriors for the invasion who are incapable of killing non-combatants.

I love how many people can justify war ^_^

No. It was immoral and more than a little immature.

We need to grow up, and stop blaming the evil that others have done for the evil that we do.

Uh, Sayjo... the Japs attacked first. Are you proposing that America turn a blind eye to Pearl Harbor? Japan wasn't going to stop at Pearl Harbor. War was forced on America. And when it came time to decide on the atom bomb or a conventional invasion/bombing, America chose the option that killed less people and took less time to finish the war. The statistics posted above are pretty clear -- the atom bombs were dreadful, but I think ulytau and mesocell in particular hit the nail on the head.

umm mapleleaf: where did someone blame the our "evil" as the "evil of Others?"

@ Mapleleaf What was so immoral about an A-bomb verses fire bombing, or just carpet bombing cities? Was it moral to fire bomb Toykyo, or Dresden? Would it be moral to make are troops to assult Japen causing much higher deaths on both sides maybe even destroying Japan as a nation, and a people? And Japan had no intention of surrendering to conventional forces. They knew western societies abhore high casuality rates, and intended to use that as leverage to get a conditional surrender.

the evil that others have done = Pearl Harbour

the evil that we do = the Atom Bomb

Understand now, shit-for-brains?

@warsprite - Holy Fuck buddy, are you serious?

ALL KILLING IS WRONG.

So we're supposed to sit back and get slaughtered?

Yeah, fuck that, if that's the high ground I'll take the low ground and live to tell the tale.

@ P.E. - Allahu Akbar!

Eden - the question was about the atomic bomb, not about retaliation in general.

By the time the bomb was dropped America was already well ahead of the Japanese. The Japanese refused to surrender and then the bomb was dropped. So whatever you're talking about is somewhat missing the point I think.

@maple: I'm sure you're making some point, but I'm not understanding. Please enlighten this simpleton.

@Lando: The second comment was in response to maple's condemnation of basically any sort of killing in a war forced upon a state. Before that I was talking about how dropping the bomb saved more lives than the conventional war that would have been necessary. So what I'm talking about now might be tangential, but it's in response to something that's equally tangential itself.

we already had a series of advances that made our units more powerful than other countries. our advanced radar systems were finally defeating the german subs by gunning them down before they saw us coming. additionally, the japanese would have fallen soon as it is. granted, we were nervous that the germans would have developed a-bomb technology before us and we used it more out of fear than really thinking through things. the bombs did far worse than good, especially since we sent millions of dollars after the war to aid cleanup and many civilian lives were lost as well. i cannot justify using a bomb that powerful, even if it pales in comparison to current weaponry.

mapleleaf "ALL KILLING IS WRONG" Not if it's you or them. So the US should have sat on it's hands and done nothing. Let Japan turn the Pacific Basin into a personal lake. Never mind what would have happaned in Europe. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is killing the lesser number. As for dying from a nuc verses a fire bombed city I see no difference.

But still, whether the bombs were dropped or not they still hadn't "turned a blind eye." They had basically won when the bombs were dropped. All that was needed was the Japanese surrender. That would have certainly come with fewer deaths. Especially if you consider the fact lives are still being lost from the A-Bombs.

@ P.E. - So Bin Laden was supposed to sit back and get slaughtered?

9/11 buddy.

Did it feel good?

@Lando - correct in large regard; the firebombing of Tokyo that destroyed 1/3 of the city and killed 100,000 civilians was just about a week before the first atomic bomb, maybe some more time given to assess the damage from that and allow for the internal political fallout may have obviated the usage of the bombs ... perhaps at least

Tru Ninja What the difference between one 18 kilotons and 18,000 one ton bombs? If your under one nothing. Japan would have fallen how without a invasion? The US would have had flatened every city first than invade. That would have caused a hell lot of more civilian deaths.

@ Sayjo - Good to see you back. Been quite a while since I've seen you around.

On the topic at hand: definitely a good call. I'm writing a research paper on whether or not it was a good call (already raided the research library) this quarter. As of now I think it was the not just right, but the responsible thing to do because there would have been far more unnecessary casualties. That being said, if I find enough evidence to the contrary while writing my paper, I'll redact that statement.

@maple: I firmly believe that the US invited 9/11 with its idiotic interventionism in the Middle East over the past fifty years, so you're not gonna stick me with that one.

P.E. + infinity

The 100,000 deaths in Tokyo did not phase the leadership, and the general pop was not in the info loop. Even after the second bomb there was a faction that still did not wish to surrender. It seems most people seem to forget that Japan had never suffered an succesful invasion in it's history, each person saw it as their holy duty to fight to the death to keep it that way. Not to mention they truely saw the Emperior as literally God on earth and would do what ever he asked. It was only by his intervention that they did surrender.