Yes.

I'm looking for a primary source citation, but it's my understanding that the US Strategic Bombing Survey group determined in 1946 that the bombings were unnecessary, after Truman asked them to research it. I have this attributed to them:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

But I need to find the original citing still.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

Page 26.

I know I'm a bit late to the conversation, but here are a couple of thoughts (apologies if already brought up):
It seems to me from the posts that I've read that we've been alternating back and forth between a historical inquiry and the effects in hindsight; I think this is confusing the debate.
Looking at it from a contemporary perspective, the dominant anti-nuke argument seems to me to be that the bombs were dropped as an indicator to the USSR of America's strength and not out of military necessity (correct me if I'm wrong -- I think that's what Putin, SacredDigits, et al have been arguing?). My problem with this is the underlying lack of faith of the American leadership. Call me naive if you will, but do you honestly believe that Truman was so callous as to condemn Hiroshima and Nagasaki for political or diplomatic gain? That is anti-authority gone too far. At the end of the day, we have to accept that Truman knew much more about the situation than we do, regardless of how many quotes we dig up, and if we can agree that he was not so malicious as to use atomic weapons purely for reasons of American prestige, the conclusion must be that he deemed it the most effective way of ending the war (note: not to say that it *was* the most effective way of ending the war, but if Truman believed it was, then that clears him morally). Also important to remember is the psychology of the situation: do we think it is possible that after 4/6 years of horrible conflict, the chance of ending the war immediately would seem all the more appealing? I for one believe that I can sympathize with Truman; presented with a method of ending the bloodiest war ever fought, who among us can say that we would refuse? (Be honest, now.)
In hindsight, I would tend to think that the long-term effects were generally positive (please note: this is *not* an attempt to minimize the pain and suffering felt by those at the sight of the bombs). It has been mentioned numerous times how the demonstration of atomic destructive capacities may have averted a "hot war," which I think everyone agrees is a possibility. In regards to the Allies' policy of pursuing an unconditional surrender, I believe that this is fully justified in hindsight, if only because it definitively ended the era of colonial expansion in the traditional sense (and before someone starts shouting -- or the written version thereof -- about American colonialism, please do not try and claim that modern-day economic imperialism is just as bad as Japanese military expansionism. It is not.).
Just my two cents off the top of my head. By no means a comprehensive moral analysis :)

Wow, way longer than I intended. Guess that's what happens when I have a paper I really don't want to write. Feel free to skip.

Very impressive research SacredDigits. I wouldn't try to argue with ya ;P

To address your concern, jmeyersd, the more I look into it, the more I feel that Truman was doing what he felt was the right decision, and he had just been thrust into presidency via FDR's death a few short months before. However, he did not make use of all available information to make his decision. I don't have any reason to believe, at this point, that he was doing it to show off, and the rationale for the Manhattan Project has little to do with his decision since he wasn't even aware of the Manhattan Project until they had bombs ready to go. I think it was a bad decision, and several people in the know at the time agree, but I don't think he felt it was the wrong decision. If that makes sense.

@jmeyersd

You're quite right that the decision in context was a extremely difficult one in circumstances of limited and/or dubious information. However that does not *justify* the ultimate decision. It may excuse it, but that's not the same thing. If I was in Trumans shoes I probably would have done the same thing, mainly because the urge to try out such a cool new toy would have been irresistable to a geek like me, but in hindsight it would have been the wrong decision.

"In hindsight, I would tend to think that the long-term effects were generally positive (please note: this is *not* an attempt to minimize the pain and suffering felt by those at the sight of the bombs)."

- are you trying to be funny?

"the demonstration of atomic destructive capacities may have averted a "hot war," which I think everyone agrees is a possibility."

- it could just as easily be argued that demonstrating the will to use the atom bombs greatly increased tensions and increased the chances of a hot war. So no, not everyone agress with you there.

go and write your paper, it's getting started that's the hard part :D

Man, I got started on it and everything and yet here I am being sucked back onto WebDip :)
@SacredDigits
I think that we are in agreement about Truman's role; if I'm not mistaken, you are saying that given the circumstances, it is understandable how he decided to drop the bomb, and that therefore he is "clean." But again, I think it's important to distinguish between hindsight and his viewpoints. The claim that "it was a bad decision" is made with the benefit of knowing what went down afterward, but you yourself have said that Truman legitimately believed that he had to drop the bomb right then. If we grant that the decision Truman reached was valid from his perspective, then it cannot be said that it was a bad decision.
@Fielder
I think we are making similar points, Your distinction between being excused and being justified is a valid one; I, however, tend to think that if we acknowledge that the decision-making process was at least not negligent, that justifies the decision. The claim that the decision is excusable but not justified can *only* be made with hindsight, which was a luxury not available at the time. In my eyes, Truman's situation justified his decision because while other conclusions were possible based on the information he had, his was not unreasonable. But again, I think we are more or less on the same page, and this is probably just be a matter of verbal semantics rather than irreconcilable ideological differences :)
RE: are you trying to be funny?
Not at all, and I do apologize if it came across that way. You'll have to forgive my verbal inadequacies. My point was that the resultant change to the geo-political landscape was a positive one, which I think is a reasonable assertion.
Lastly, "the demonstration of atomic destructive capacities may have averted a "hot war," which I think everyone agrees is a possibility." is not a definitive claim. It seems from your response that you acknowledge it as "a possibility," though by no means is it the only one.

"Call me naive if you will, but do you honestly believe that Truman was so callous as to condemn Hiroshima and Nagasaki for political or diplomatic gain?"

I can only point to the quotes and documents which indicate this.

There was an element of 'revenge' that Truman felt he had to enact. If you look at his quotes, it is clear that he felt he was avenging Pearl Harbor and Japanese atrocities vs POWs.

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true." (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, p 563).

The war in the Pacific had turned into total war. The Americans had been firing napalm on populated cities which created uncontrollable firestorms. Tens of thousands of Japanese civilians were being killed each day. The planners purposely chose cities for the A-bomb that were densely populated and hadn't been hit by many bombs yet.

"
Stimson "expressed the conclusion, on which there was general agreement, that we could not give the Japanese any warning; that we could not concentrate on a civilian area; but that we should seek to make a profound psycho logical impression
on as many of the inhabitants as possible. At the suggestion of Dr. Conant, the
secretary agreed that the most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing
a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."

"Stimson stressed that he was worried about the air force's mass bombing,
but that it was hard to restrict it. In his diary, Stimson recorded: "I told him I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the air force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength." According to Stimson, Truman "laughed and said he understood."
[146]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS -Volume 74

@jmeyersd: He had all the information at his fingers, he just didn't fully explore it. He had several people within his administration who proposed alternate ideas, and made convincing cases for the bombs not to be used, including higher ups in the military and within his cabinet. I've been arguing all along that saying the decision only looked bad in hindsight is false. Eisenhower, MacArthur, etc etc etc all felt at that moment that it was a poor decision.

However. We all choose who to listen to and who not to listen to, and Truman made the decision to listen to some and not others. I think he listened to the wrong people, but I'm sure he didn't personally feel that way.

For the sake of getting a little bit of work done today I've tried to avoid reading all the posts but two points that I don't think have been visited enough are:

1. Why drop the bomb in the city? The Almighty Power of the Bomb could have been demonstrated by dropping the bomb in a relatively uninhabited place. The way the rest of the war was fought, I don't believe that loss of life was a great deferent for the Japanese generals but the military power was so I think dropping the bomb in an uninhabited place would have had similar effects

2. Why two bombs? Even if one was justified (which I have a hard time doing) the second one would be even harder.

But, all that is for moot if what SacredDigits quoted is true. If the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs then it was certainly a disgustingly immoral act.

I'm obviously a bit late to this conversation, and since I'm working on a paper I'm not going to read through the entire convo. Here's my opinion:

1. Japan and the United States were at war. As the commander-in-chief of the army, Truman was justified in annihilating the entire population of Japan if it saved 1 American life. Obviously that was unneeded, but considering the fighting at Okinawa, the atom bomb was thought to be the only way to get the Japanese to surrender quickly. <-- my opinion

2. The second bomb should not have been dropped so quickly. The second bomb, imo, was not justifiable because of the lack of time given for the Japanese to realize the scope of damage that the first bomb had caused.

3. Both bombs were dropped to show US power to the USSR. Both bombs were negotiating tools. If they were dropped solely for that reason, I believe they would be immoral, but I believe the first bomb was dropped to also force the Japanese surrender, and as I said before, it is my belief that Truman was justified in annihilating the entire Japanese population if it saved 1 American life. In all honesty, why should he care about Japanese lives?

"2. Why two bombs? Even if one was justified (which I have a hard time doing) the second one would be even harder."

Potsdam Declaration stated that unless Japan surrenders unconditionally, it will face "prompt and utter destruction". 2 bombs achieve that better than 1. I'm not apologizing the unnecessarily strongman approach (especially since they didn't really longed for unconditional surrender that much in the end) from the signataries but you have to back up that threat if you want it to have any impact.

"If the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs then it was certainly a disgustingly immoral act."

I highly doubt that Japan was ready to unconditionally surrender before the bombs were dropped. Remember, these people fought, bled, and died for every inch of their empire to that point. If they really were ready to surrender, then the American leadership had no way of knowing.

Dropping the atomic bombs was a good decision.

"Dropping the atomic bombs was a good decision. "

Judea declares (economic) war on Germany.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=ernk_lssbd&xhr=t&q=judea+declares+war+on+germany&cp=7&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1258&bih=793

The Holocaust was a good decision.

"In all honesty, why should he care about Japanese lives? "

Why should Hitler care about Jews lives?

You pro-nuke people are cold, your blood lust is sickening. you are proving yourselves to be of the same mind-set as some of the most evil dictators this world has ever seen.

You must be proud.

I guess commanding your armies through Europe gives people a bit of bloodlust.

But in all seriousness, patizcool, your statements are so fundamentally evil that I'm not sure if you're just trolling or being serious.

No, commanders-in-chief are not 'justified' in annihilating whole populations when making war. They didn't even do this in the days when people were considered the property of monarchs. Furthermore, what American lives did the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki threaten? The answer is none. The bombings didn't save one single solitary American life. It was an act of sadism to intimidate the Soviets, nothing more.

As Putin points out above, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki strikes were more about the postwar divvying of power between the two clear winners of the war. Were they justified? Justification is something winners decide, like war crimes. Were the results beneficial? Yeah, as an American, I'd say they were. The US and Sovs never squared off in a direct war to determine who was the global alpha dog. That's a good thing in my view, unfortunate as it may have been for a resident of Vietnam or Somalia or Nicaragua to play host to one of the tens of little proxy wars we fought with the Sovs. Based on this hypothesis, I disagree with Putin's assertion that the bombings did not save a single solitary American life.

The problem with that, Bob, is that NONE of that could have been factored into the decision to bomb.

Hindsight is great though, isn't it?

The problem with that, Bob, is that NONE of that could have been factored into the decision to bomb.

Hindsight is great though, isn't it?

lots of 500 errors today...

What, that we didn't fight a hot war with the Sovs? In 1945, the Red Army was the fearsomest instrument of destruction on the planet, and let's face it, Unkie Joe wasn't shy about using it to shape the politics of non-USSR countries. Fat Boy just let Unkie Joe know that the Yanks had a way of obliterating Leningrad that the Nazis couldn't pull off, which argued strongly for a certain amount of future caution out of the Sovs.

If anything, the use of the bomb confirmed what Stalin had known all along about the West - that they were bloodthirsty warmongering bastards. So in 1946 we have Stalin's Bolshoi Theater speech, the only real significant post-war speech made by JVS. In this speech, Stalin essentially says war is inevitable with the imperialists and between the imperialists. So really the use of the bomb hardened the position of the Soviets toward the west more than anything else. Perhaps, then, we can attribute these bloody proxy wars to the bomb instead of claiming the bomb avoided a so-called 'hot war'.

I don't think Stalin needed much confirmation by 1945 that America and Britain were bloodthirsty warmongering bastards.

Yes but the USSR had scrupulously adhered to the post-war settlement agreements in Yalta and Potsdam and whatnot. In 1947 though you see a more militant posture coming out of Moscow - exemplified by the "Two Camp" theory put forward by Cominform. In the late 1940s you have the Berlin crisis, the Czechoslovak issue, the French and Italian communists becoming increasingly militant, and the criticisms of the Titoites. Communists in Asian countries also became increasingly militant as they broke with their bourgeois nationalist allies in order to struggle for Communist leadership in these countries.

So one cannot really say the Communists were intimidated by the atomic bomb. The tactic failed miserably.

"Hindsight is great though, isn't it?"

Darwyn, you are right about that. But you are wrong to compare the Holocaust to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All cites have civilians and women and children. Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened to be two of the very few intact Japanese cities left after two years of strategic bombing. There were no military targets left in Japan worthy of spending a nuke on.

If we hadn't of dropped the bombs, we would have had to kill nearly the entire population of Japan. THAT would have been a genocide.

Dropping the bombs saved a lot of lives on both sides.

"If we hadn't of dropped the bombs, we would have had to kill nearly the entire population of Japan. THAT would have been a genocide.

"Dropping the bombs saved a lot of lives on both sides."

Keep telling yourself that with no substantiation whatsoever. You keep inventing the worst case scenario false choice narrative that has no basis in fact.