And it's sad when Mapleleaf makes the most cogent argument in a thread.

@Maple: the terrorism in the middle east is a result of the US and other Western powers interfering in the middle east. however, as a response to your comment at 9:24 PM EST, i find that to be " more than a little immature" and maybe it is you who needs to "grow up."

While i find wars to be terrible in and of themselves, i support the US's and other nations right to defend themselves in the event of an attack on their nation. As for the use of the nukes i support warsprite's comment at 9:52 PM EST

almost forgot, where blaming Pearl Harbor, "Their Evil," for the Atomic Bombs, "Our Evil," is not what anyone here has argued. the only thing about Pearl Harbor being brought up is to show the reason we got involved with Japan militarily in the first place

Japan had lost the capability to attack the US long before the bombs were dropped. The idea that was a matter of 'self-defense' is ludicrous.

Firstly, re Pearl Harbor, I don't know why the people think America was some innocent little lamb. The Japanese had problems with America since the Russo-Japanese War, and many older Japanese people would remember the un-equal treaties forced on them.

Secondly, it is highly likely that the Japanese government would have surrendered without the bomb. The dropping of the bomb was not only about saving casualties, but also, and arguably mainly though that's also debatable, about intimidating the Soviets who had invaded Manchuria and basically forced the large majority of Japanese forces there to surrender.

Putin: while i see what you are saying, i see no relation to anyone else's comment.

How could the Russians invade the main islands with a few destroyers and a couple of cruisers. Oh yes while Japan had most of its assets facing the US.

Keep in mind America couldn't have just kept nuking mountain tops and deserts as a show of dominance. After the test run as a proof of concept, they only had enough weaponized uranium and plutonium for those two bombs. There was much doubt as to whether they would even work.

I fall to see how the invasion of Manchuria scared Japan to surrender.

"nuking something other than cities to get the message across"

That would have been a good idea, but America only had two nuclear bombs at the time. The perception was that Japan would not surrender no matter what. Because of this, the American leadership probably figured that the two nukes in the inventory must be used to maximum effect. Remember, the plan for Operation Downfall included the use of tactical nuclear weapons in close proximity to friendly soldiers.

Exactly, most of the Japanese fleet was facing the Americans. But I was not implying that the Soviet fleet would launch an invasion on Japan. Japan mainly invaded China for resources. Thus taking China away from them, and in the process capturing large amounts of Japanese soldiers would cripple their war effort.

orangefarm Did Japan know that? By invasion day they could have had 7 more ready to go.

Japan already was basicly isolated from Asia at that point and only a trickle of troops and supplies where making it to Japan.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Tsuyoshi-Hasegawa/2501

It was the fact that the Japanese had not expected the Soviet attack, and did not feel they could hold off both the Americans and Soviets simultaneously, that ended the war. Especially since prior to the Soviet invasion Japan had thought the Soviets were going to mediate a peace settlement between Japan and the Allies.

"Political Calculations

Soviet entry into the war was indeed a shock to the Japanese ruling elite, both civilian and military alike. Politically and diplomatically, it dashed any hope of ending the war through Soviet mediation. But Soviet entry meant more than merely precluding the option of Soviet mediation for peace. Here, we must consider the political calculations and psychological factors apparent in dealing with Japan’s two enemies. Before the invasion of Manchuria, the Soviet Union had been Japan’s best hope for peace, while the Japanese ruling elite felt bitter resentment toward the United States, which had demanded unconditional surrender. After August 9, this relationship was reversed. The small opening that the United States had intentionally left ajar in the Potsdam terms, which Japanese foreign ministry officials had astutely noticed as soon as the Potsdam Proclamation was issued, suddenly looked inviting, providing the only room in which the Japanese could maneuver. They concluded that suing for peace with the United States would confer a better chance of preserving the imperial house, if not the kokutai as it was envisaged by ultranationalists. No sooner had the marriage of convenience uniting right-wing Japan and the communist Soviet Union broken down than the Japanese ruling elite’s fear of communism sweeping away the emperor system was reawakened. To preserve the imperial house, it would be better to surrender before the USSR was able to dictate terms. On August 13, rejecting Anami’s request that the decision to accept U.S. Secretary of State James Byrnes’s counteroffer (the “Byrnes note”), which rejected Japan’s conditional acceptance of the Potsdal terms, be postponed, Suzuki explained: “If we miss today, the Soviet Union would take not only Manchuria, Korea, [and] Karafuto [Sakhalin Island], but also Hokkaido. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States.”[68] Furthermore, when Shigemitsu had a crucial meeting with Kido on the afternoon of August 9 at Prince Konoe’s request, which eventually led to Kido’s meeting with Hirohito that persuaded the emperor to accept the “sacred decision” scenario, Shigemitsu stressed the negative effect of further Soviet expansion on the fate of the imperial household.[69]"

" The perception was that Japan would not surrender no matter what."

Which is why Japan was in the process of suing for peace prior to the bombs being dropped.

@Putin It seems that it's a matter of contention as to which had more of an effect. "Another piece of evidence on which Asada’s and Frank’s argument is constructed is Prime Minister Suzuki’s statement. According to Asada, on the night of August 8, Suzuki told Sakomizu: “Now that we know it was an atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, I will give my views on the termination of the war at tomorrow’s Supreme War Council.”[20] After the war, Suzuki made another statement: “The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks.” From these statements, Asada concludes: “The hitherto vacillating and sphinx-like Suzuki had finally made up his mind. It is important to note that Suzuki did so before he was informed of the Soviet entry into the war early on the following day.”[21]"

For what its worth, Harry Truman described his decision as a Military decision, that he has a weapon that could end the war and he was willing to use it.

I don't see why the U.S. would refuse Japanese surrender overtures and drop the bomb anyway. It seems such a decision is less jingoistic than faithful to Soviet allies. If you can find evidence that the U.S. knew of this process for suing for peace, I would be more inclined to believe it. "being in the process" does not at all mean the U.S. knew about it.

"That would have been a good idea, but America only had two nuclear bombs at the time. The perception was that Japan would not surrender no matter what. Because of this, the American leadership probably figured that the two nukes in the inventory must be used to maximum effect. Remember, the plan for Operation Downfall included the use of tactical nuclear weapons in close proximity to friendly soldiers."

I read the U.S. had something like another 6 less than a month away from construction .

"Firstly, re Pearl Harbor, I don't know why the people think America was some innocent little lamb. The Japanese had problems with America since the Russo-Japanese War, and many older Japanese people would remember the un-equal treaties forced on them."

You're addressing a moral argument with a practical one. Pearl Harbor wasn't brought up to paint the US as innocent lambs by any means. Pearl Harbor was brought up as a response to the moralist arguments that any killing is evil and wrong and the US is wrong for using the bombs because it killed a bunch of people even IF it saved lives relative to a conventional invasion. The point isn't that the US was innocent; it was a specific response to "all killing is bad" by saying "Japan started it, and wasn't going to stop until the US was brought down; thus, the US had no choice but to kill." It's a neutralization of the "all killing is bad" line of argument, not an attempt to paint America as the innocent lamb.

Yeah, they had unbalanced treaties. But to the moralist "all killing is bad" argument, that's irrelevant. Japan started the killing. Even if the treaties were unbalanced, Japan started the killing, which violates the moralist "all killing is bad" clause.

Now, that argument holds in the more practical argument -- that the US was its own agent provocateur -- but then it's not a moral argument anymore, and so the practical argument that the nukes saved lives compared to a conventional invasion stands... except:

"Secondly, it is highly likely that the Japanese government would have surrendered without the bomb. The dropping of the bomb was not only about saving casualties, but also, and arguably mainly though that's also debatable, about intimidating the Soviets who had invaded Manchuria and basically forced the large majority of Japanese forces there to surrender."

This seems to be under contention, from what I'm reading of others. Personally, I'm not remotely educated enough regarding the invasion of Manchuria to comment on its potential diplomatic effect on Japan, so I'll withhold comment (especially since it seems to have been addressed by those who are more informed already).

Finally, I don't buy the "scaring the soviets/ stopping the soviet advance" thesis. At Potsdam Truman let Stalin know about the bomb, albeit cryptically. And the Allies had pressed stalin to invade Japanese territory, I don't see why the Soviets acquiescence would trigger a response (with the assumption the US wouldnt have done it otherwise) of dropping the atom bombs. Maybe someone could help me with that.

It was either suddenly stop the war, in which case the nut-jobs would still be in power, doing a massive invasion of the island, killing millions of military personell on both sides as well as many many Japanese civilians, or dropping the bombs, killing much less than several million.
I think the choice is obvious. Not pleasant, but obvious.

It was not justified. The individual conventional bombing raids on Japan had already proven just as deadly as the A-bomb (without the lingering radiation), so the argument that the A-bomb ended the war is bullshit. The A-bomb had no unique value, so no, you can't justify it's use.

As Putin said, the japs were already talkin peace, so it seems very obvious to me that the US rushed to use the A-bombs whilst they were still at war with Japan. i.e. it was a science experiment. Thats why they dropped two, and only 3 days apart. Cynical stuff eh.

@warsprite - Quote: "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."

- really? Are you privy to the inner thoughts of every jap 65 years ago? Or maybe you are just spoutting a bunch of cliche'd BS.

From a moral point of view, how is dropping an A bomb any different from dropping a number of conventional bombs that cause the same number of casualties / amount of suffering?

The war waged by the Americans was a defensive one, and so that had the right to demand unconditional surrender. They American Generals also had the responsibility towards their own troops to minimise casualties. Dropping the Atomic bombs put the situation Japan was in into focus- that the only choice was unconditional surrender or annihilation. This can only have accelerated the end of the war, and therefore reduced American casualties. What's more, it only risked the crew on the two individual missions.

People seem to forget how psychopathic, narcissistic and backward the imperial emperors were, and if they thought they could arrest the American war machine by pretending to be suing for peace, they would take that opportunity right away. In particular, the Japanese had their own Nuclear weapons program, about which perfect information was impossible to gather. One could imagine a scenario where through not taking such decisive action, Japan would be allowed its own bomb- something that I think it is clear would have been a terrible thing.

It is totally irrelevant whether or not the Japanese were thinking about surrender, they were still at war with the US, and the US had every right to wage war completely, including by the bombing of Japanese cities by whatever means available. If the Japanese government had wanted to avoid the deaths of civilians for whom they are responsible, they should have surrendered, and as soon as Hiroshima had been bombed, they should have surrendered. 3 days is a heck of a long time in which to surrender if you have just had an entire city wiped out by a single bomb, I'd have though.

*thought

>You are posting too frequently, please slow down.

No, I'm not

>You are posting too frequently, please slow down.

No, I'm not

I think the decision to drop the Bomb was wrong.
Because dropping the bomb showed that the american government was ready to take extreme steps to put trough its interests. I mean these bombs have been used agaisnt civilians. Its in this case stupid to do this, because you dont have just to look at the effects on Japan/USA, you have to look at the Soviet Union too.

How should the soviet union react to such an cruel attack? I belive that dropping the bombs made a huge ditch between the allies and soviet union. Which escalted into the cold war. My conclusion is, without dropping these bombs the cold war could have been avoided.

The cold war was based on the fact that both the US, and to a far greater extent the USSR were looking to expand their ideologies, which were completely contradictory. The USSR was in the process of empire-building, too (which was part of its ideology).

Yes, without nukes we would probably not have a cold war... It would have been hot instead...

All other scenarios would have led to more deaths, on both sides. Saying it was the wrong decision without comparing the alternatives is simply too naive.

@TGM - hopefully what you are attempting here is a parody of someone brainwashed by propaganda?

@ivo_ivanov - i feel your need to believe. Love the certainty.