Was the use of the Atomic Bomb in WWII justified?

[TBB]

A-Bombing of Japan justified.

What people don't realize is that Japan had at that time the LARGEST supplies of chemical and biological weapons. They had planned for an operation in Oct. 1945 to launch 5 submarines capable of launching planes to the west coast. Those planes had all sorts of stuff: plague, flu, smallpox, etc. People say that the losses of an invasion of Japan would have been 1 million soldiers. No the cost would have been 1 million soldiers and an unimaginable amount of ciivilians.

 

[unmerged(4745)]

Very tricky question....

But you have already described some of the alternatives. Other alternatives might have been a tight blockade, like a siege of a medival fortress, combined with intensified bombing until the japanese have been starving to the capitulation.

I think WSC had such ideas like biological warfare and blockade.

 

[Kasperus]

biological and chemical warfare was a commonplace in WW1 and WW2. It is only after 1945 that the 'world' enforced a ban of it. So it sounds like comparing apples with peaches to me... (that all apart of the point that I actually don`t really understand what the original poster aims at with this whole thread...)

 

[joak]

Re: A-Bombing of Japan justified.

Originally posted by TBB
What people don't realize is that Japan had at that time the LARGEST supplies of chemical and biological weapons. They had planned for an operation in Oct. 1945 to launch 5 submarines capable of launching planes to the west coast. Those planes had all sorts of stuff: plague, flu, smallpox, etc. People say that the losses of an invasion of Japan would have been 1 million soldiers. No the cost would have been 1 million soldiers and an unimaginable amount of ciivilians.

Well, most days anyway I agree the bombing of Japan was justified, because the loss of life on both sides due to a ground invasion would have been extreme.

But you seem to be saying that it was needed to defend the US against a Japanese attack using chemical or biological weapons? I'm extremely skeptical at that point that Japan had the logistical ability at that point to pull of any sort of significant attack on the continental US. Twelve Monkeys notwithstanding, it takes more than breaking a few vials in the environment to start a real epidemic.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Re: A-Bombing of Japan justified.

Originally posted by TBB
What people don't realize is that Japan had at that time the LARGEST supplies of chemical and biological weapons. They had planned for an operation in Oct. 1945 to launch 5 submarines capable of launching planes to the west coast. Those planes had all sorts of stuff: plague, flu, smallpox, etc. People say that the losses of an invasion of Japan would have been 1 million soldiers. No the cost would have been 1 million soldiers and an unimaginable amount of ciivilians.

We have already gone through this debate..use the search function..and another thing..as a Mod on the board I urge you to carefully study the board rules..

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47436

the name of the thread might upset some people..

 

[unmerged(502)]

Justufied? Two cities burned to the ground and thousands upon thousands dead and you call it justified???

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Re: Re: A-Bombing of Japan justified.

Originally posted by Wasa
We have already gone through this debate..use the search function..and another thing..as a Mod on the board I urge you to carefully study the board rules..

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47436

the name of the thread might upset some people..

Yes, I was part of that discussion... it was fun! But I think (TBB) you're wrong about Japanese stockpiles.. IIRC the USA had the largest amounts of Mustard Gas in the world in 1945. Oh, and the bombing of civilians wasn't justified... but if you don't believe me read the thread.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

This is a question on which Im not comfortable even forming an opinion. Reading plans & casualty projections for Operation Olympic, the slaughter wouldve been enormous on both sides. Back then, conventional bombing/naval bombardment meant huge civilian casualties. Thus, before Allied troops came ashore, air & naval forces wouldve levelled Japan's cities, devestating the entire island. You can safely predict that the damage in property & life wouldve greatly exceeded that caused by the 2 A-bombs. Japan's ruin wouldve been total, and in the process, we wouldve lost up to a million Allied soldiers. Ive met dozens of WWII vets that are confident of the above; if they had to invade Japan, for which they bore a personal animosity because of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, etc., they were going to fecking flatten everything.

On the other hand, we ushered in a new era with those bombs. The world, humanity, & warfare changed forever. The whole world spent 50+ years living in the shadow of total atomic/nuclear war. And you can hardly say that it is or ever was a "good thing" to use atomic/nuclear weapons on anybody, especially the populations of 2 large cities. Its unthinkable now; its horrifying to imagine. So while I understand the factors that led to the decision, its still a tragic moment in human history. Its especially disturbing to me that it was my country that made that decision.

I dont doubt that had Japan obtained the bomb first, inland China & likely Hawaii & California wouldve been annihilated. Had Germany, to whom the USSR's population were subhuman mongrels who must be liquidated, finished theirs first, the USSR wouldve been annihilated; & instead of V-bombs, London mightve caught an A-bomb. That makes me shamefully glad we got it first. But ultimately, the whole question just makes me sick.

 

[unmerged(469)]

A related question: under what conditions do you believe a demand for unconditional surrender is justified?

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
On the other hand, we ushered in a new era with those bombs. The world, humanity, & warfare changed forever. The whole world spent 50+ years living in the shadow of total atomic/nuclear war.

But don't you think this would have happened anyway? Whether or not Japan caught the bomb is irrelevant, the Cold War was going to start, and the Rosenbergs and their ilk were going to help the Russians get The Bomb. Moreover, I would rather have people living in the shadow of nuclear war than under the boot of real war. After all, if the Russians had wanted to go in the 1950s, without the threat of the atom bomb, what would have stopped them?

 

[unmerged(9600)]

I think the A-bombing of Japan is justified, but primarily because of the potential Olympic casualties on both sides. If you look at the Japanese plan, odds are it was going to run into some problems, considering that the sea is US dominated, as is the skies over the continental US. And most germs don't do well when they are smothered in burning aviation fuel. The sort of logic you are considering is the type that says that the Russians had plans to use chem and bio weapons in the event of a sub-nuclear war, so we should have nuked them then, armageddon be damned.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

The use of nuclear weapons is a terrible thing. The massive-scale bombing of civilians is also a terrible thing. Do I love my country? Yes. Am I proud of everything she has done? No.

The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan saved millions of lives, although that is a paradoxical thing to say. The projected Allies casualty figures for Operation Olympic, the invasion of the southern island of Kyushu, were greater than 400,000, or more than the total killed by the 'A-Bombs.' The projected casualty figures for Operation Coronet, the largest military undertaking ever planned in detail and the invasion of the large island, were 800,000.

That is on the Allied side alone. If the cost of the war had been a choice between 1,400,000 American lives or nuclear weapons, the decision seems obvious to me.

The estimates of lives lost on the Japanese side are usually in excess of six million. I have seen some that place it as high as twelve million, and some as low as four million.

All things considered, ending the war sooner by levelling two cities saved millions of people.

Steele

 

[unmerged(469)]

Steele:

But you seem to be presupposing that bomb or invade were the only two options.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

The only two options available to conclusively end the war.

Japan had been under intensive fire-bombing for months, and the blockade prevented anything from getting in or out, and this had been in place almost as long. Short of using devastating new weapons, or invading, there was no means at all to force the Japanese hand into surrenderring unconditionally.

Steele

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Steele
The only two options available to conclusively end the war.

Yes, but was fighting to conclusively end the war the only valid choice? This is what I was trying to get at when I posted the question about the justifiability of unconditional surrender.

I'm not trying to bait you or anyone, just trying to think this through and hoping to hear some others ideas.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
Yes, but was fighting to conclusively end the war the only valid choice? This is what I was trying to get at when I posted the question about the justifiability of unconditional surrender.

I think it was justified. Americans viewed a conditional surrendered as a prelude to war downt he road. See the Great War for that.

 

[unmerged(9600)]

Originally posted by Faeelin
I think it was justified. Americans viewed a conditional surrendered as a prelude to war downt he road. See the Great War for that.

Agree wholeheartedly. Even if the US had been willing to accept a conditional surrender, the sorts of conditions that Japanese honor would be liable to impose would be unacceptable for the USA.

 

[unmerged(4486)]

IIRC from other A-Bomb threads, one argument that some have made is that dropping the bomb may not be justifiable because the Japanese (may) have been sending diplomatic feelers for peace.... A peace that would be conditional, but probably the main condition being that the Empereor not be de-throned and charged as a war-criminal. Though I don't know if Japan would be occupied in that kind of scenario.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by StJaba
IIRC from other A-Bomb threads, one argument that some have made is that dropping the bomb may not be justifiable because the Japanese (may) have been sending diplomatic feelers for peace.... A peace that would be conditional, but probably the main condition being that the Empereor not be de-throned and charged as a war-criminal. Though I don't know if Japan would be occupied in that kind of scenario.

According to what I read recently in Hoyte's Japan's War Japan did in fact ask the USSR to act as intermediaries for peace discussions, but Moscow refused.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

i really dont see much else other then the bomb or invasion. if the generals and population dont think they lost, any peace signed would probably lead to a coup. which again leaves us with bomb or invasion.