Should the Atomic Bomb have been dropped on Japan?

[spidge]

I have put a link at the end of this. This is where the saying of "read it and weep" must have come from.

Where would be without hindsight. What many modern day "pacifists" and sympathises don't key into their logic is that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering without honour. This was not considered and could never have been allowed.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki was a small price the Japanese paid for their atrocities and dreams of Asian domination.

Aerial bombardment of the home island would have "raised" most Japanese cities and killed millions of civilians. Soldiers on both sides would have died in their 100's of thousands.

The dropping of the bombs actually had mercy on those who did not have mercy on others.

The anti-bomb enthusiasts speak of the post war injuries and ongoing medical conditions of those who survived in the two cities yet what is conveniently omitted is the scars they left on the soldiers they interned and treated inhumanely to the point of eradication.

What of the civilians they slaughtered, (in Timor alone, they executed some 60-70,000 or 13% of their total population).

What of the families of the POW's who would never be the same again.

What of their ongoing medical conditions?

While 95% of all Japanese prisoners were repatriated to Japan only 51% of all allied prisoners of the Japanese survived the war.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

[Kitty]

Its a very difficult situation. In Australia you were closer to Japan in the war and therefore suffered more than we did in Europe. Should the bomb have been dropped? With hindsight and knowing the ongoing effects of the radiation, then i want to say no. But knowing what would have been the alternative with a powerful and widespread bombing campaign, then yes it had to be dropped.
I am not sure the second bomb should have been dropped though.

[Ron Goldstein]

Originally Posted by Kitty

Its a very difficult situation. In Australia you were closer to Japan in the war and therefore suffered more than we did in Europe. Should the bomb have been dropped? With hindsight and knowing the ongoing effects of the radiation, then i want to say no. But knowing what would have been the alternative with a powerful and widespread bombing campaign, then yes it had to be dropped.
I am not sure the second bomb should have been dropped though.

Had this same question been posed in 1945, after the end of the War in Europe but before the end of the war in the Far East, then I will stake whatever little reputation I have on what the answer would have been.

100% of whoever was polled would have answered "Drop the bomb...immediately !"

I, like so many others had experienced war at first hand.

My family, like so many others, had suffered the grievous loss of one of their sons.

We knew what a continued war with Japan would entail.

The bomb, at the time, was a complete and over-welcome Godsend.

We never had the luxury of hindsight...we were living the day itself.

And that is how I see it.

Ron

[Ron Goldstein]

Originally Posted by Kitty

Its a very difficult situation. In Australia you were closer to Japan in the war and therefore suffered more than we did in Europe. Should the bomb have been dropped? With hindsight and knowing the ongoing effects of the radiation, then i want to say no. But knowing what would have been the alternative with a powerful and widespread bombing campaign, then yes it had to be dropped.
I am not sure the second bomb should have been dropped though.

Kitty

You are quite correct in saying "given hindsight" but, as in all these contentious matters, at the time in question we were dealing with the matter in hand.

Consider this.

We had come through six years of bloody strife and desperately wanted the war to finish.

We knew the Japanase would not surrender, their very Military Code precluded this, and we knew that many more of our forces would be killed.

We heard for the first time of this wonder weapon that seemed to be the answer to our prayers.

Did we welcome it?, you bet we did !

Ron

[Ron Goldstein]

Originally Posted by Kitty

Its a very difficult situation. In Australia you were closer to Japan in the war and therefore suffered more than we did in Europe. Should the bomb have been dropped? With hindsight and knowing the ongoing effects of the radiation, then i want to say no. But knowing what would have been the alternative with a powerful and widespread bombing campaign, then yes it had to be dropped.
I am not sure the second bomb should have been dropped though.

Kitty

Unfortunately, when one is in the process of literally fighting a war for survival one does not have the gift of hindsight.

Consider then the situation with which we were faced in May 1945.

After six terrible years of deprivation and much loss of life the war in Europe had come to an end but we were still faced with the major problem of dealing with Japan.

Many families, including my own, had lost kith and kin.

Along came the Bomb with its promises of speeding the conclusion of the war and coping with a people who would never have considered surrender as it went against their very code of honour.

Was I personally glad that the bomb was dropped ?

You're damn right I was !

Do I think that everyone else thought as I did?

The same answer, in spades !

Ron

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by Ron Goldstein

We knew the Japanase would not surrender, their very Military Code precluded this, and we knew that many more of our forces would be killed.

The question of surrender is an interesting one. It wasn't clear cut, and it certianly wasn't the case that all Japanese were unwilling to surrender, and instead dight to the glorious end.

The clearest indications that the Japanese were split were the attempts by the "peace party" of the Imperial Cabinet to get Stalin to assist in negotiating with the Allies. Two issues that were the basis for failure of these attempts from the start were (a) Stalin had no desire to help negotiate a peace as he was preparing to cancel the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Treaty, and enter the war himself, and (b) just like with Germany, the idea Allies had forced their hand by demanding an Unconditional surrender.

The Americans knew that the Japanese had been making contact with the Russians through the Ultra intercepts well before the A-bombs. However, by that stage they knew that they had the upper hand, and were willing to force Japans.

Another issue is whether the bomb was really about forcing a Japanese surrender and saving lives (considering those same Americans could have been saved by opening negotiations with which the Allies could possibly have achieved a lot, instead of an invasion of the Japanese mainland), or was it an early signal to the USSR? Truman was much less an idealist than Roosevelt, and less susceptible to Stalins "charm". He was probably the first real-politik politician of the Cold War in the West (as was Churchill but he had lost power by then).

[Kyt]

The search for a negotiated peace: Japanese diplomats attempt to surrender Japan prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=

[Kyt]

From The Truman Archive - documents related to the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...arge/index.php

[Kyt]

Even before the Bomb was used some mebers of the Manhatten Project had serious reservations about using it:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-17.html

and the original scan:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...b&pagenumber=1

July 17, 1945

A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power. Until recently, we have had to fear that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today, with the defeat of Germany, this danger is averted and we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.

The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States -- singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.

The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control.

In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.

Leo Szilard and 69 co-signers

[Kyt]

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
______________________

And a number of other military & political leaders who disagreed with the use of the Bombs:

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY (Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
JOSEPH GREW (Under Sec. of State)
JOHN McCLOY (Assistant Sec. of War)
RALPH BARD (Under Sec. of the Navy)
LEWIS STRAUSS (Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
PAUL NITZE (Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)

You can read statements made by them at: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm