For Santa:

@Meso

''My point is that it was not the sole reason for the use of the atomic bomb.''

Yes I will. Indeed a man I greatly respect who was involved in the Manhattan project reports General Groves, the head of the project, as saying in 1944:
"Of course, the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets"

Joseph Rotblat. Leaving the bomb project. http://books.google.com/books?id=uwYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&source=gbs_toc_pages_r&cad=0_1#v=onepage&q&f=false

I wholeheartedly recommend it as a primary source.

Darwyn, I respectfully disagree. Though there was a portion of the Japanese government that wanted peace and was ready to surrender, to the point of sending out feelers through other governments, the Japanese army was in full control of the government, and had no intention to surrender. Again, I point out the battle of Okinawa as proof that although feelers were sent out, the reality was that it was not a viable option to the Japanese government. Further, I fully grant that the unconditional surrender decree from Potsdam had a large role in that.

On the flip side, the initial war aims of the Japanese government was to set up the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which directly lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor to eliminate the American threat. The plan was that once Japan had establish the territorial gains they wanted, they would then dictate terms of peace. The point there being that there was a peaceful option as early as 1942 in the Pacific.

As I have stated before, the use of an atomic bomb on Japan was horrific. However, in my opinion, the use of the bomb in the end saved more lives than it cost.

I will go one step further and state that the use of the weapon was un-moral. No weapon like that should have been devised or used IMHO. But I have the benefit of hindsight and living in a time where use of such a weapon is thankfully condemned by the world at large.

However, in the context of the time, it was justifiable, which is what the original post was asking.

"the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets"

Agreed, fulamish. Further, as Putin alluded, having a bomb is useless if you cannot demonstrate the will to use it.

So to answer the OP question, was it justified? I think we need to start thinking about the REAL reasons it was dropped...not what they are telling you.

Of course anyone who had a hand in that decision will adhere to what mesocell describes: "the use of the bomb in the end saved more lives than it cost".

That's the popular answer and anyone can chime in and argue its justification or not. But in my opinion, it had little to do with that and everything to do with showing off American military might and the will to use it.

In fact, I think Putin nailed it: “An atomically armed US which was willing to use these new weapons was a different animal at the negotiating table in the post-war order of the world.”

I'd like to see someone argue its justification under THAT context!

In other words, many of you can come to terms with the decision so long as its framed under the guise of saving lives.

But I doubt ANY of you can come to terms with it under the guise of increasing American influence.

You all must start considering the possibility that the US killed thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children so they could show the world how big of a dick they have.

@ Darwyn
"the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets"

It was not me who said this but the head of the Manhattan Project itself, reported by one of the scientists who worked on the bomb. This scientist decided that the work was immoral, left the project and dedicated the rest of his life to medical physics. QED?

Darwyn -- What if that "different animal at the negotiating table" saved lives in the Cold War? That different animal, combined with the Soviets' nuclear capacity, established the mutually assured destruction doctrine that probably prevented all-out conventional war.

Now, of course that wasn't the intention, if we take the "We have nukes and we will use them" line of argument for why the bombs were dropped. But it's a possible consequence of the decision, certainly.

Moreover, what does it matter what the primary motivation here was? One motivation was certainly sparing the lives of American soldiers -- who, it should be noted, were drafted, compelled to serve in the War, no more deserving of death than the Japanese civilians. The bomb killed less than a conventional invasion; the fact that the people killed were Japanese instead of American is irrelevant, as neither party was more or less deserving of death.

fulhamish -- How is that QED? The scientist is an expert on science, not on morality. His testimony concerning the power of the bomb would be significant; his decision to leave the project on moral grounds is a moral decision, and he is no more an expert on morality than anyone else just because he worked on the project.

"he is no more an expert on morality than anyone else"

There are experts on morality?

"What if that "different animal at the negotiating table" saved lives in the Cold War?"

I'm not sure you could have predicted that using the bomb would equate to saving future lives in a time period that hadn't yet manifested.

@ President

If you read the reference you will see that Rotblat outlines some of the reasons that his fellow scientists gave for persisting with the work.

He, however, actually did make a moral decision to leave the project; a decision which others have said did not occur to people at the time to make. Moreover, your view that the scientists involved had no particular moral imperative/responsibility for the consequences of their work is highly questionable. Would you be prepared to extend this to all employment/research?

You also forgot to address this remark made by the head of the Manhattan Project:
"the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets"

I will again state that two highly ranked US Army Generals in the war, including the one tasked with the Pacific sphere, both disagree with the sentiment that the dropping of the bombs saved the life of even a single American soldier. If you want to factor in possible casualties in the Cold War, you should also factor in a possible lack of further casualties in WWII.

"Moreover, what does it matter what the primary motivation here was? One motivation was certainly sparing the lives of American soldiers"

Because if that particular motivation can be discounted, then so to can the justification.

@ Darwyn

''I'm not sure you could have predicted that using the bomb would equate to saving future lives in a time period that hadn't yet manifested. ''

I agree, and to be blunt the only explanation that springs to mind is denial that the USA could engage in such a murderous act. From someone who grow up in a London devastated in part by the missiles built by Werner von Braun who was given refuge by the American government on condition that he helped develop their rocket programme, this comes as no surprise!

@fulhamish -

And don't forget Prescott Bush's assistance to the Third Reich. :)

But yeah, denial is about right.

The thing that always strikes me in these conversations, and I remember having one where Obi threw out something similar in regards to the Trail of Tears, is that people like to say, "Well, no one was opposing these ideas at the time, ship the Indians off, nuke the Japanese, this was acceptable by the people as a whole then, no one knew how bad it was" in order to give it some kind of "atrocity pass". But yet, there's tons of primary sources that show that there were opposing views, in both cases, and in both cases, opposing views held by the people that, realistically, should have been the best-regarded experts.

I cannot figure out why this is even an argument. It is simple arithmetic. 246,000 (high end of death estimates from Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is much less than the projected death toll of Operation Downfall (on both sides).

I believe the Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman, and child if the atomic bombs had not been used.

It's an argument because the two people I would trust most to give the death estimates of the war continuing, General Dwight Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur, said at the time that there was no need for a land invasion, the Japanese would surrender if we gave them the one concession that we ended up giving in the end. It wasn't a binary choice between bombs or land invasion, and I'd trust MacArthur's estimation of the Japanese will to fight (since he had, you know, been fighting them) over anyone's in this thread.

"There are experts on morality?"

That's my point. Bringing up that a scientist on the project left it out of a moral concern isn't making a significant point, let alone "q.e.d."

"I'm not sure you could have predicted that using the bomb would equate to saving future lives in a time period that hadn't yet manifested."

"Because if that particular motivation can be discounted, then so to can the justification."

Um... no. You're arguing from a motivation-based notion of morality. I'm arguing from a results-based one. Of course they couldn't have known at the time that this was going to save lives in the Cold War, but if the end result is that it did then you can't discount that simply because it was an unintended consequence.

"If you read the reference you will see that Rotblat outlines some of the reasons that his fellow scientists gave for persisting with the work.

He, however, actually did make a moral decision to leave the project; a decision which others have said did not occur to people at the time to make. Moreover, your view that the scientists involved had no particular moral imperative/responsibility for the consequences of their work is highly questionable. Would you be prepared to extend this to all employment/research?"

I think you're grossly misinterpreting my point. It was simply that a scientist on the project leaving over moral concerns is not expert testimony, because the scientist is not an expert on morality but on science; thus, presenting it as though it's some kind of boom-q.e.d.-end-of-story point is fallacious. It's a false appeal to expert testimony.

"You also forgot to address this remark made by the head of the Manhattan Project:
"the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets""

I didn't address it because I don't care what the motivation was in making the bomb. I'm only concerned with the end results of its use, which I hold to be the best means of ensuring the surrender terms the US felt was necessary with as few casualties as possible.

"I agree, and to be blunt the only explanation that springs to mind is denial that the USA could engage in such a murderous act. From someone who grow up in a London devastated in part by the missiles built by Werner von Braun who was given refuge by the American government on condition that he helped develop their rocket programme, this comes as no surprise!"

So a results-based look at morality didn't once occur? That the bottom line of saving lives is somehow not an argument, and that everyone supporting the notion of using the bomb is brainwashed into thinking that America can do no wrong?

Considering I'm sitting here supporting aforesaid notion while having explicitly gone on record earlier in this thread saying the US brought 9/11 on itself by dicking around in the Middle East for half a century, I find this statement preposterous.

"It's an argument because the two people I would trust most to give the death estimates of the war continuing, General Dwight Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur, said at the time that there was no need for a land invasion, the Japanese would surrender if we gave them the one concession that we ended up giving in the end. It wasn't a binary choice between bombs or land invasion, and I'd trust MacArthur's estimation of the Japanese will to fight (since he had, you know, been fighting them) over anyone's in this thread."

I feel like if US leadership as a group felt like Japan would surrender if the one concession were given that they wouldn't have dropped the bomb. It seems to me that the very authorization of using such a potent device would itself be an indicator of its necessity. Unless you want to paint the collective US leadership as a group of sadistic bastards, you would just about have to concede that they felt it was necessary. From the motivation-based moral outlook, the notion of it being absolutely necessary to ensure an end to the war and save lives should be sufficient justification, no? And from the results-based moral outlook, we don't and can never know if the Japanese would have surrendered without bombs or land invasion; thus, we have to look at the binary choice, and we see that the nukes were clearly the best life-preserving option.

Wait...because we don't know if they would have surrendered or not we need to assume they wouldn't? That doesn't make sense. The problem was that some within the US leadership (to wit, Truman) did not consult the person best able to give him an answer. You're talking about a military decision, and most of the military disagreed with it, including the leader of the US Air Forces in the Pacific AND the commander of the US Army in the Pacific, people that I would think would be better prepared to phrase what the binary options were. Both of them thought it was a choice between surrender with bombs and surrender without bombs.

Regardless of what you "feel like", that is what happened.

" At the moment i am not convinced the bombing was understood of being devoid of military merit, and equate it more with the london blitz than with the Holocaust."

The London Blitz largely targeted military targets though.

"Wait...because we don't know if they would have surrendered or not we need to assume they wouldn't?"

I'm saying that the US leadership isn't stupid enough to drop a nuke without exhausting all other options which would preserve more lives than a nuke. That's a pretty reasonable premise.

"The problem was that some within the US leadership (to wit, Truman) did not consult the person best able to give him an answer. You're talking about a military decision, and most of the military disagreed with it, including the leader of the US Air Forces in the Pacific AND the commander of the US Army in the Pacific, people that I would think would be better prepared to phrase what the binary options were."

In being a military decision, it was also by definition a diplomatic decision, military actions being a subset of possible diplomatic decisions. I think that Truman and the people conducting diplomacy would have a better idea of Japan's negotiations than the military.

And what you "would think" doesn't matter if what I "feel like" (same meaning, different phrasing) doesn't matter. What happened is that the diplomacy-conducting branch of US operations felt that surrender without bombs was not an option. Regardless of what you "would think" concerning the validity of MacArthur and Eisenhower's opinions, the fact remains that the people conducting negotiations with Japan felt that the Japanese would not surrender without the nukes or an invasion: binary decision.

"Both of them thought it was a choice between surrender with bombs and surrender without bombs."

And apparently, the people who were ACTUALLY in the best position to know whether the state of Japan would surrender -- the diplomats, not the generals -- thought it was a choice between surrender with bombs and surrender with invasion. Binary choice, and the US chose the one which cost less lives.

"I cannot figure out why this is even an argument. It is simple arithmetic. 246,000 (high end of death estimates from Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is much less than the projected death toll of Operation Downfall (on both sides).

I believe the Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman, and child if the atomic bombs had not been used."

I don't know how many times people have to say that this wasn't the choice before you get it through your thick heads. You're presenting a false choice that didn't exist. There was no need for an invasion, and had US given up unconditional surrender Japan would not have "fought to the last man", as we quickly found out when the US dropped the unconditional surrender condition.

I do agree with you about one thing, this shouldn't even be a debate.

Since the pro-nuke people keep repeating the same non-point over and over without substantiating it, this debate has become tedious.

Can any of the pro-nuke people point a single primary source in which "saving lives from invasion" figured prominently among the decision-makers? Or is this just post-hoc explanations that whitewash history?

Here's your "diplomatic arm" quote, PE.

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

And the problem is...they weren't conducting negotiations with Japan, so the diplomatic arm knew less of the situation than you give them credit for.

~~~RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)

On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:

"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."

Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives

"Can any of the pro-nuke people point a single primary source in which "saving lives from invasion" figured prominently among the decision-makers? Or is this just post-hoc explanations that whitewash history?"

Well... I know I personally haven't been arguing that it was the motivation at all, just that the fact that compared to an invasion the nuke did save lives and that, regardless of whether or not that was the reason for the decision, it's justified on those grounds.

@SD: Can I have the primary source of that? I've been looking for information pertaining to the diplomatic arm of US leadership and would like to read more.

Er, strike the last bit, I was posting while you were replying with it. One moment.

"just that the fact that compared to an invasion the nuke did save lives and that, regardless of whether or not that was the reason for the decision, it's justified on those grounds."

But for the 10,000th time, the choice was not between nukes or invasion. So your justification doesn't wash.