h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It is possible to argue that the Hiroshima bomb was justified, in that it demonstrated a power which immediately persuaded Hirohito and his generals to capitulate, thus ending what was likely to be a long and bloody campaign through the Pacific.

The Nagasaki bomb, on the other hand, was dropped purely to se if ot would work - and as such it is Nagasaki, more than Hiroshima, which is the atrocity.

In my opinion dropping nuclear weapons was a terrible atrocity. They destroyed the lives of innocent men, women and children and I don't think that they in any way compare to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour which started US involvment in the war.
I believe that it is better for soldiers to die in battle than for civilians to die. I think that there is a chance Japan could have surrendered eventually even without a nuclear weapons.

First of all, there was no chance Japan would have surrendered without nuclear weapons. It took them long enough to surrender as it is. The only alternative to dropping the bombs was a mainland US invasion, which would have killed many, many more civilians (and soldiers, both US and Japanese) than the two bombs combined.
The US/British bombing of Dresden, Germany, on the other hand, was completely unjustified.

First of all, there was no chance Japan would have surrendered without nuclear weapons. It took them long enough to surrender as it is. The only alternative to dropping the bombs was a mainland US invasion, which would have killed many, many more civilians (and soldiers, both US and Japanese) than the two bombs combined.
The US/British bombing of Dresden, Germany, on the other hand, was completely unjustified.

The bombing of Hiroshima was no worse than the Blitz, Dresden, Liverpool or any one of a number of other large-scale campaigns against cities. In part it was this kind of destruction which has made the second world war as such a powerful deterrent to war as a means of territorial aggrandisement.

Many estimates have been made of the likely casualties - civilian and military - had Japan continued the Pacific war as they no doubt intended. All make stark reading.

There was, of course, ignorance of the long-term effects of nuclear explosion. It is easy to see how America would feel justified in attacking Japanese cities given the way Japan had entered the war, and the way the axis powers had conducted the Atlantic war. It is also easy to judge past actions by the standards of today - using which criteria very little of the middle period of the war could be justified.

It needs to be remembered that the governments in ALL combatant countries in WWII had the support of their populations. Aquinas wrote at a time when war was dynastic rather than nationalistic. With nationalism the civilians, who are supporting the war both politically and logistically have to be seen as valid targets, horrific though that is. The Japanese civilians were valid targets because of their on-going support for the war. Total war (like WWII) requires the use of all means possible for victory. The consequences of loss are too terrible to contemplate. To ask the US to value the life of a Japanese civilian at the same level as one of their own soldiers is naive.

Actually, Japan was prepared to surrender before the atomic bombing, although the soliders weren't (although they had to obey the Emperor). The Japanese knew Japan was broken and beaten. Japan had offered to surrender on condition that the Emperor was not dethroned. The USA was willing to accept the surrender but made no guarantees for the Emperor, this split the Japanese War cabinet. Following the atomic bombing, the cabinet, still split, met again. Emperor Hirohito became involved and said Japan must surrender (he already had believed this, but had been left out of cabinet discussions). Japan repeated it's offer to surrender but again said it would not allow the Emperor to be dethroned. And wow! Suddenly the USA did not care about the Emperor and accepted the surrender. Many Japanese troops refused to accept the surrender and some even attacked the Imperial palace.

The claim that the USA *had* to bomb is a lie. Why not just detonate an atomic bomb off the coast of Japan then radio Tokyo to tell it next time it's the Capital? Why two bombs and not one? (scientific experiments need a second opinion).

I travelled to Japan on holiday earlier this year and visited the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, I can say that it is a very eerie place, and that much suffering was inflicted on the civilians of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The museum goes to great lengths to present an unbiased account of the bombing and lists several reasons why the United States decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, some of which may be classed as "justified" in a perverted sort of way.
The real tragedy is the bombing of Nagasaki several days later. At this point in time, it has been argued that the Japanese government were still not aware of exactly what had occured at Hiroshima. Surely merely the threat of a repeat performance would have ended the war had the Japanese government known what had hit them.

I travelled to Japan on holiday earlier this year and visited the Peace Museum in Hiroshima, I can say that it is a very eerie place, and that much suffering was inflicted on the civilians of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The museum goes to great lengths to present an unbiased account of the bombing and lists several reasons why the United States decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, some of which may be classed as "justified" in a perverted sort of way.
The real tragedy is the bombing of Nagasaki several days later. At this point in time, it has been argued that the Japanese government were still not aware of exactly what had occured at Hiroshima. Surely merely the threat of a repeat performance would have ended the war had the Japanese government known what had hit them.

Actually, Japan was NOT prepared to surrender either before or after the bombing. Only the personal intervention of the Emperor made the surrender happen and even then it was touch and go.

I would say that the bomb was not the major cause of the Japanese surrender, but neither was the basic fact that the war was obviously lost. The reason was an event that took place between the two nuclear bombings -- the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

Remember what had already happened to Germany -- divided between four enemy powers in a way that would clearly lead to apparantly permanent division (Had the Japanese war carried on, it could well have lasted into 1947 or even 1948 -- the powers in the case of Japan would be America, Britain and Russia, with China replacing France).

The bomb was clearly in its infancy and it was obvious that America had, in fact, run out of bombs with Nagasaki. But imagine the thought in the minds of Hirohito, Tojo and the cabinet -- the People's Republic of North Japan, with an equally divided Tokyo.

The Soviet intervention made the prospect of the inevitable defeat infinitely worse. But with Stalin a new enemy, they could avoid this fate if they surrendered then and there.

Was the use of the bomb therefore justified? I don't know. The full horror of its use arguably prevented World War III, but I'm not sure the Allies knew this at the time.

The thing is, and people forget (or don`t know), that more people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (yes that many). The fact that it was a single bomb that caused the devastation is what helped the Japanese to realise the apparent superiority of the US military might. Previously they had not believed that the US had the technology, since they were so far away from it themselves.

(See Akio Morita (Mr SONY) if you want to ask a Japanese person)

Please, let us all remember that, whether or not you believe the use of atomic weapons could be justified in itself or was necessary to bring capitulation, that Japan began the aggression; and that the reason for the Pearl Harbor attack was to frighten us from interfering with their plans for expansion by conquest.
It was an arrogant and foolish act by a people who came to pay a price for greed and avarice, as well as for the unprovoked violence. The phrase "all's fair in love and war" took on a new, intensified meaning, but is still held true by many we could face today.
Trying to justify a war has nothing to do with how it ends, but how it is begun.

"Trying to justify a war has nothing to do with how it ends, but how it is begun."

For example, by invading a country whose military had already been decimated by war and a decade of sanctions.

Sorry to have left this for so long. I really don't know how it got lost. (it was one of my first days on h2g2)

Yes, even a country that had been decimated, etc.

Again, how it was begun is the key. The unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country prompted a world response that resulted in much damage, which could have been avoided by simply not preying upon a helpless neighbor.

At that point, my sympathies for the regime ended. Their refusal to comply with UN sanctions, even after a decade of relative patience, only showed the government to be continuingly arrogant and conspiratorial. Bullies cannot go unchallenged. This is a lesson that the world should have learned with Ghengis Kahn, but still hadn't learned with Adolph Hitler rose in power.

The WMD was never a consideration with me. I will not be surprised if it turns out that the American government 'manufactured' compelling reasons for forcing the issue; but, if so, I'm not sorry it did. I'm only sorry about the amount of pain and suffering that was caused from the beginning of the invasion through now. I am REALLY sorry that the first push-back didn't result in the taking of Baghdad and the ousting of SH.

I'm MOST SORRY that peace has to have such a heavy price, both in terms of human lives and in the aftermath.

Which just goes to show that there were no plans whatsoever for the aftermath. Which is exactly what I suspected, and the reason I opposed it. Had there been, I would have done. Why did we not give Blix that time he wanted, arrange a wider coalition, and use the time bought to plan for victory?

Yes, I have to wonder, too.

In these cases, even hindsight cannot be 20-20. Our leaders roll the dice, and place their bets with our money and lives.

It's kind of like the guy who grows impatient and runs around the railroad gates. Sometimes it works out the way you want, and sometimes you get tagged by the train. The other day, two drivers tried it at once and hit each other.
---------------------------
If I'm wrong, I can stand to be corrected; but I believe that history shows the U.S. entered both World Wars, I & II, on emotional waves brought about by events that the presidents (and their people) orchestrated. I may not like it, but it's hard to be surprised when someone re-uses a technique that works.

Perhaps people just have to stop being so gullible. Maybe after the next evolutionary wave.

"The Nagasaki bomb, on the other hand, was dropped purely to se if ot would work"

This would be a wonderful justification for moral outrage, if only it were true.

It isn't.

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was of the plutonium-implosion "Fat Man" design. Aside from the fusing and aerodynamic casing, it was identical to the device exploded in the desert near Alamogordo in the Trinity test of 16th July 1945. It was considered necessary to carry out the test because Fat Man was a complex design, requiring a neutron source, a sub-critical sphere of plutonium, and carefully designed explosive "lenses" to compress the plutonium into a critical mass. The combination of untried physics and intricate technology could not be guaranteed to work first time.

By contrast, the "Little Boy" design that destroyed Hiroshima, was not subject to prior test. This was partly because the design was more robust: essentially the bomb was a gun that pressure-welded two sub-critical masses of uranium-235 into a single, supercritical sphere: simple technology and (relatively) simple physics. Another reason was the relatively low availability of uranium-235, compared to the large amount required. Uranium-235 makes up about 2% of all uranium, and is difficult to separate, over 50kg are required to make a bomb. By contrast, plutonium can be made in quantity from uranium-238 and separated chemically; less than 20kg can be induced to explode.

I'm not sure where the idea that Nagasaki was destroyed merely as a bomb test originated: I first came across it in "Oath of Fealty" by Niven and Pournelle, where it is cited as a motivation for one of the environmentalist characters. One would hope that those two writers would know better, but the book gives no indication that this is so.

The alternative to using the bombs was continuation of the Japanese war by conventional means.

The invasion of mainland Japan was set to begin in mid-1946 and would involve up to five million US servicemen - and this was only the first phase!

Simultaneously, British and Commonwealth forces would take the lion's share of chasing the Japs out of Malaya and Indonesia and cleaning up the islands beween Asia and Australia. By mid-1945 we had already destroyed a Japanese army in Burma with minimal American assistance - even allowing for the bulk of the British Army being engaged in fighting Germany - so this was a very achievable goal with entire armies awaiting transfer out of Europe after May 1945.

It was thought that British armies would be ready to participate in the fighting in mainland Japan in the later part of 1946 or in 1947 - it was estimated the Japanese homeland would take up to FOUR YEARS to subdue and that casualties on the Anglo-American side could run into the millions.

With the two air forces that had pulverised Germany fighting side by side, what was left of Japan's industry and built-up areas would be smashed: it was estimated that the bulk of RAF Bomber Command and the USAF's 8th Air Army could be in the Far East within a year of Germany's surrender. (The first British planes were already attacking mainland Japan from April 1945 onwards: these were relatively lightweight Royal Navy fighter bombers)

And a third wild card is Russia's entry into the Japanese war: the Russians would not be immune to heavy casualties either, were they to participate in an invasion of Japan.

(And what do you think the Japs would have done to the Western prisoners of war they were treating so abysymally? They would not have hesitated to massacre British and American prisoners of war - and incidentally, while the Japanese shout and scream for the West to apologise for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they have never adequately apologised for their treatment of Western prisoners.)

Imagine all these things extending WW2 until 1948 or 1949, and possibly ading another 250,000 British casualties to the final toll (also an estimated 1,500,000 Americans and maybe as many Russians) and it's easy to see why the Americans dropped the bombs.

It spred a lot of loss of life and the pointless dragging out of WW2 for another three or four years. It also saved a lot more Japanese civilian deaths, although this would have been a LONG way down the page after the Ammerican and British lives saved!

I can't recall where I read it, but it has been said that, in the absence of the atomic bomb, the USAAF would have started to run out of worthwhile targets for conventional raids by September 1945.

It is also instructive to compare the approaches of the Imperial Japanese and Royal Navies to the War at sea. The RN invested, albeit slowly and reluctantly at times, considerable resources into anti-submarine operations and escorting merchant vessels in convoys. The IJN by contrast, concentrated almost entirely on its battlefleet and aviation wings, leaving the Japanese merchant marine to its own devices, with the result that it had all but ceased to exist at the hands of USN and RN submarines by August 1945, leading to chronic shortages of food, fuel and essential war materials in the Home Islands.

I think it is reasonable to presume that, had the Atomic bombs not been dropped:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been destroyed by conventional air raids with similar or greater loss of life;

A naval blockade would have led to large losses of Japanese life by starvation;

An invasion, if deemed necessary, and carried out in the overwhelming force planned, would have caused yet more carnage: the more an invasion was delayed, the less resistance anyone in Japan would have been capable of putting up as their irreplaceable supplies were consumed.