It's time for me to withdraw from this debate. I am not an historian, nor an authority of military strategy, and apparently this is what it takes according to some posters in order to advance the argument that it was wrong to drop two atomic bombs on civilian populations. I haven't seen their credentials either, but never mind.

Perhaps it is totally naive to think that there actually is a right and wrong, even in wartime, and that it is not contingent upon the good conduct of the enemy to act in an honorable way.

What we know in our consciences to be right and wrong should be our guide in all of our undertakings. I have shared with you my feelings of conscience.

I tire of reading the rationalizations of killing innocent people. Therefore, I am leaving this thread. Have at it, boys and girls, justify the mighty atomic bomb and what it has brought us, but you'll do it without me.

It should. Even in war. But it never will for war is doing wrong by definition. I think moral cannot be applied in this case, because in war there is no honorable way. It is all about destruction and death. Maybe its as simple as that.



We ventured somewhat off topic, hope you might change your mind though, Paladin.

I am sorry, but you completely missed the point. I have never said the atomic bombings were glorious, wonderful, pleasant or anything but a tragedy. I do not take any joy from the deaths of those Japanese, civilian or military.

None the less, the fact that it was a tragedy does not alter its necessity. We know you think killing these civilaisnw as wrong, and thats an admirable stance. However, as I have said many times, this happened 50 years ago, not today, and norms and morals were different. You keep applying your personal morality to anachronistic events.

Secondly, even ignoring the above, several people have demonstrated that the alternative was to allow MORE japanese civilians to die in an invasion. I asked several times if you had a third option, the bomb or invasion, and you did not. Choosing the lesser of two evils is never pleasant, but if one has no choice, then it is the decision one must take. You seem to now want to aknowledge that NOT dropping the bomb, and thus forcing invasion, is the greater of two evils. As you have not been able to supply a third option, you have bee arguing for the deaths of significantly more people.

Listen, morality is wonderful, and war is bad. But to protest a violent action without considering the consequences is foolhardy.

Going to war with Germany in 1939 cost hundreds of thousands of British lives, civilian and military. Would you automatically say then that the moral choice was NOT to go to war? Then you condemn Europe to tyranny and massacre, not to mention the jews, gypsies, slavs, etc. War in this case is bad, but the alternative is worse.

That is the case with the atomic bombs. The bombs were unpleasant and lethal, but not using them was a far worse option, and would have led to far more deaths, on both sides of the war. That is the 'honourable' action you are arguing for.

You know what? I reject the argument of honour ornot, as civilian bombings were completely legal acording to international law at the time. HOWEVER, even if I WERE to accept the argument, If my choice is between acting 'Honourably' and killing 100 innocents, or acting 'dishonourably' and killing 20 innocents, I will choose dishonour every time.

It was absolutely necessary. If you watch any of the fine documentaries on the History Channel and if you know anything about Japanese culture you realize Japans military was preparing to fight to the death. Children down to 8, including girls, were being trained to defend their cities, towns and the coast. An invasion would have been preceded by conventional bombing that would have killed more civilians than the A-Bombs and the ground fighting would have been as brutal as the battles for the islands such as Okinawa.

The last documentary I saw also told a story I had not heard. After the 2 A bombs were dropped the Emperor was encouraged to compel the military to accept defeat but a faction in the military wanted badly to fight on and they actually held the Emperor prisoner in his compound for 2 days until a loyal division broke through and allowed the Emperor to broadcast his desire to end the war.

While you make excellent comments, a proceedural matter:

7 pages of posts and almost 4 months have passed since the post you are replying to. I would recommend you first read them over (As they discuss in detail many of the issues you bring up) before adding to the thread...

Just my opinion...

I like this comment:



We can only speculate if the reasons were justified. We have to hope they were.

We may have wanted to test the bombs, but there were other reasons too. Japan may or may not have been about to surrender, but it doesn't matter. The point is that they didn't, and it would have been utterly stupid sit around and wait for them to attack us again. they bombed Pearl Harbor and killed many Americans as well. On top of this, i don't think the scientists knew at the time the long term effects the radiation would have on the survivors and environment.

A bit off topic but you are wrong. The Japanese as a whole don't hate Americans. I spent about a year in Japan between two deployments and never once had that impression. In fact I would say the Japanese are relatively pro-American, even when they don't agree with our foreign policy.

You must consider the fact this is a WAR! As President of the United States it was not Truman's job to secure the lives of the Japanese but that of his own people. In my opinion if I even save 1 american live, no matter what the cost to my enemy as they are the enemy, it is well worth it. It has also been argued that it probably saved Japanese lives too. Consider what state Japan might be in present day if the Soviet Union would have been involved longer and taken part of Japan. THey very possibly might not have ever recovered, since the only reason Japan did was because of America during the Korean War. Also there was warning for Japan at Potsdam. It is in Annex II part b. 13. if you would like to read it. It calls for unconditional surrender of Japan. Furthermore Annex II Prat b. 2. states that the U.S. China and Britian "are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan". If this is not a warning I dont know what is.

I'd like to bring a few bits of data and analysis to this debate.

First, here is the conclusion of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which interviewed over 700 Japanese political and military officials after the war:


This is an excerpt from an interesting work by Doug Long:


So a big part of the problem was that the term "unconditional surrender" was too vague. The only condition the Japanese wanted prior to the dropping of the bombs, was the assurance that their emperor system would be allowed to remain intact.

The evidence is before us, and it begs a question which may not be comfortable. To what end was the atomic bombing reaching? A warning to the Russians? National power? Are these ends worth whatever means we decide? Are the deaths of so many an acceptable price for such questionable ends? The signs were all there, all available, that the Japanese would likely surrender without the atomic bombs being dropped - and without an invasion. Were these signs simply ignored? Was this intelligence not making it all the way up the chain to Truman? We may never know. Giving the US government the benefit of a doubt, we can conclude at best that the use of the atomic bombs was a horrible mistake, reached through bad vetting of intelligence - intelligence which was incontrovertible, even at the time.

I have posted at some length of this topic before in this thread, and I must ask where you come to that somewhat unsupported conclusion.

Firstly, with regards to the survey you cite, I find it baffling. It is an accurate and intelligent summary of the war, and then goes into great detail to explain how the cabinet was not about to surrender, there was a deadlock, and only the atomic bombs combined with 'other factors' (such as the invasion of Manchuria by the USSR) allowed the Doves to intervene with the Emperor and agree to surrender. The document explains this quite clearly, that surrender was NOT going to happen, and the events of early August made it possible for surrender to happen.

Then, it makes the completely unsupported declaration: "Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

It is most certainly not clear, in fact the Survey itself goes some way to explain why surrender was not inevitable. Earlier in the survey they mention that while morale was low, there was no popular unrest at all about the war, and the entire population of japan would probably have quietly submitted to death in war had the Emperor asked it of them.

I have spent a great deal of time going over the transcripts of the cabinet meetings, and it is very clear that surrender was not going to happen. The Hawks in the cabinet could NOT have been overcome, as they outnumbered the doves, held positions of greater power, and both army and navy had the ability to dismiss the cabinet a will, which they had done in the past when they were disagreed with. Only the interference of the Emperor, the first time that had happened in 5 years, broke the deadlock. Even then, several Hawks launched a coup to place the Emperor in protective custody and reverse the decision, the coup narrowly failed. While the general population took the news with shock, then releif, the military objected as a whole, many pilots flew out on kamikaze missions after the broadcast of the surrender against orders, and over 120 ranking oficers committed suicide.

Not only was the surrender not inevitable, but the survey does a good job of showing exactly why the surrender was not inevitable. How the bomb can be classified as a "horrible mistake" baffles me, the survey also does a good job of pointing out just how the relative power of the bombs stacked up: the two bombs were a total of 24 kilotons of explosives, but in the 18 months before the bombs, the US had dropped over 160 kilotons of explosives on other Japanese cities, and another 494 kilotons on Japanese targets outside the home islands. In addition, 2.7 megatons of bombs were dropped on the Germans. Individual conventional bombing raids of Japanese cities had produced results of greater damage, and greater loss of property and life than either of the atomic bombs.

Lastly, I am further puzzled by your blaming the dropping of the bombs on bad intelligence, or ignoring incontrovertable intelligence. What evience was ignored exactly, and what exactly did this evidence demonstrate which showed that the dropping of the bombs would be a 'horrible mistake'?

You speak of clear signs that the Japanese were about to surrender: what signs exactly? A Japanese ambassador in Europe sent out peace feelers days before the attack, the Japanese government condemned him to death as a traitor. was that a sign? The japanese were mobilising and training for the great Ketsugo plan to efend the home islands to the last man. Was that a sign? No communications suggesting anything like an upcoming surrender being possible had come to the US or its allies from the Japanese. Was that a sign? Following the dropping of the first atomic Bomb, the Japanese still did not surrender. Was that a sign?