Atomic bombing

[Pootle]

What was the justification for the US bombing of the cities of Hirosima and Nagasaki?  

[pauludall]

retaliation for the events at pearl harbour

[Philtaz]

I don't agree.  The justification was that far too many lives on either side were being lost in in fierce last-man-stand fighting in the South Pacific.  Truman dropped the bombs in order to bring the maniacal Japanese leaders to their senses and make them realise that they were in a no win situation and further slaughter should be prevented.

However it is hard to justify dropping bombs of that magnitude on such densely populated areas.  It shows the idiotic resolve of the Japanese rulers that the Americans had to drop 2 bombs though.

[Loosehead]

Philatz is correct, paradoxically,the dropping of the bombs saved countless lives. At that time the japanese where totally committed and would never have surrendered. The people of Japan were being told to fight with whatever they could the Americans would have had to fight for every inch of Japan with massive losses on both sides. The 2 atomic bombs convinced the Japanese that they could not resist. Still they only surrendered when the emperor ordered it. Thousands of Samurai committed Hari Kari because of the "Dishonour".

[jno]

I'm unconvinced that the 2nd bomb was needed, though. What was the justification for that exactly?

[Loosehead]

Well they had to convince the Japanese that, it wasn't just a one off, they had to make it clear that they had this weapon and would use it on all the cities if necessary only then would Japan see that they had to surrender (in fact they had only 2). I don't think people today can really comprehend the resolve and fanaticism of the Japanese at the time, to them surrender was worse than death, it took a lot to convince them. If they though that the americans could only drop the bomb once they would not have surrenderred.

[MargeB]

<Strokes chin>. Pretty convincing argument, still wouldn't like to have been in one of those cities though.

[Peter Pedant]

The American war planner were budgeting a million casualties for the invasion of Japan.

The rather overwhelming evidence for the second bomb justification is whether the japanese thought about surrender after the first.....

I think no - but the q is verifiable.

I think the J Cabinet meeting when the emperor said, it is time to think the unthinkable was afcter the second bomb......

 

PP

[hobart]

The massive loss of life in combat was the official excuse, but there's some evidence (mostly through encrypted communications that were cracked) that suggests Japan was about to surrender to the Russians and America didn't want that to happen.

[Trillipse]

This however, was clearly not the real REASON for the bombings, though it may well have been portrayed as the justification. The US needed to find out exactly what effects the bomb would have in proper use, i.e. on a population. which they got. i'm not saying the u.s. are any more dreadful than other countries when at war, far from it. but i suppose it's part of the human condition, ain't it. from the first use of clubs and spears onwards, we take advantage of whatever keeps us at an advantage. they were presented with a great opportunity to be almost justified in doing some real-life a-bomb testing.

"praise the lord and pass the ammunition" indeed...

 

that's people for you

[CapnCurry]

Just chiming in with the American perspective - I'm not a military expert or anything, but I believe this was the first weapon where we crossed the line between "can we" and "should we".  Military strategy to this point was about designing a better weapon, and then using it.  Once we figured out how to make the bomb, the next step was dropping it on somebody -- there was no "ethical review" step in between.  Richard Feynman, one of the physicists who helped create the bomb, described the idea as being "get the bomb ready as fast as possible so we can end the war."  Build a weapon, then use it; the bigger the better.

It wasn't until after we finished that we looked at what we had done and thought, "Perhaps there is such a thing as overkill after all."

[Dhistorygirl]

Its all of the above to my understanding. Yes, there was an element of retaliation for the events at Pearl Harbor. Yes, there was a need to stop the casualties. They were willing to use the bomb because they knew it would effectively bring Japan to its knees...and unfortunately I think there was also a great deal of curiousity in the hearts of men as to exactly how much damage the bomb would do. To end the war would be an official answer. However, I think there is a lot that underlies that simple official answer.

[Calvesy]

A land invasion would have been an endless bloodbath, and the Japanese at the time would never have considered a surrender. By making them think that there was an unending supply of bombs that could flatten cities in one go, there would be no point in continuing to fight a superior opponent. In fact those two nukes used up America's entire supply of fissionable material, but the 'bluff' worked.