I made a post on a Qadhafi thread asking this question. It was off topic but I am truly interested in some thoughts and hope these thoughts will be well supported.

Question: Assume you were the President of the US in 1945. FDR had recently died and you had to assume the responsibility for the conclusion of WWII.

Your choices were the use of nuclear weapons or an outright invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Surrender by the Japanese was not a consideration since they would never have done so.

Would you have used the bomb or would you have invaded?

Try to support your thoughts with some reasoning.

I'm not American (in case you hadn't guessed), but I think I would have done the same, dropped the bomb. I would have done so to save American lives... and indeed, to save Japanese lives, as the total casualties would have been far fewer than in an invasion. Nobody realised at that time what the full after-effects of radioactivity were. Being only human, I wouldn't have been able to see the future!

But then.... I would have been as stupid then as I am now, and so would everybody else who tries to rethink the past.

Well, I'm not anti-historians so I like the exercise of thinking about the past and how we could have done things differently and how what effects that would have on events that followed.

That said, I would have done the same as Truman. Maybe after that tell Stalin that he had by the end of the year to pull his army back to the pre-war USSR borders or else we would drop another one on Moscow.

Bombs away.

To speculate towards historic what-ifs, one would first have to be ready and learned of objective historiography, yes?

Knowing what I know now, I would have dropped the bombs. I am not sure if I would dropped them on Japan, however.

I already gave my brief answer in the Gaddafi thread..........

How about you OP/chuck? Would you have been inclined to nuke a civilian population

in the hopes of an earlier end to a war?

bomb

Well, I'm not anti-historians so I like the exercise of thinking about the past and how we could have done things differently and how what effects that would have on events that followed.

That said, I would have done the same as Truman. Maybe after that tell Stalin that he had by the end of the year to pull his army back to the pre-war USSR borders or else we would drop another one on Moscow.

I too would have bombed Japan. Its an interesting question you pose there koheesti. I guess the world was simply tired of conflict and there was no perceivable benefit in the eyes of Truman or Churchill at the end of the war in rescuing the countries to the east.

In Britain's case we were simply broke and in massive debt to the US and in your own case I wonder if the people of the time gave much concern for the welfare of the Poles et al?

So politically it may have been the best strategy to leave well alone.

Well, I'm not anti-historians so I like the exercise of thinking about the past and how we could have done things differently and how what effects that would have on events that followed.

That said, I would have done the same as Truman. Maybe after that tell Stalin that he had by the end of the year to pull his army back to the pre-war USSR borders or else we would drop another one on Moscow.

I too would have bombed Japan. Its an interesting question you pose there koheesti. I guess the world was simply tired of conflict and there was no perceivable benefit in the eyes of Truman or Churchill at the end of the war in rescuing the countries to the east.

In Britain's case we were simply broke and in massive debt to the US and in your own case I wonder if the people of the time gave much concern for the welfare of the Poles et al?

So politically it may have been the best strategy to leave well alone.

If it were 1945 and I didn't know what would happen the next 45+ years with the USSR I wouldn't have threatened Stalin. Knowing what happened, maybe I would have. Although, a result of that might have changed the space race entirely and today we might not even have reached the moon yet. That the tricky thing about changing a past event (pretending anyway), it leads to other unforseen changes.

I already gave my brief answer in the Gaddafi thread..........

How about you OP/chuck? Would you have been inclined to nuke a civilian population

in the hopes of an earlier end to a war?

Short answer to your question about my choice would be...Yep.

Quoted below is Flying's response to my off-topic question in the Qadhafi thread. It is post number 61 on that thread.

_______________________________________________________

Flying said:

"As for your query of what if I were president Truman...

I will agree it is well off topic & better left for another topic.

But to put it as simply & briefly as possible....

I would never order the annihilation of a large civilian population

as a supposed means to a earlier end of a military war. Whats next? Invade a country & rape all the women & children

to put the next war to a sooner end? Is one less evil than the other? Evil is not disguised no matter the reasons claimed."

_______________________________________________________

The simple answer is to drop the bomb.

But as already mentioned, the consequences were not fully understood.

Radiation sickness was almost unknown (Marie Curie excepted) and consideration and separation of civilian and military targets had already been thrown out the window with the bombing of London, Liverpool, British Midlands, Hamburg, Dresden and so on. Plus the Russian ground forces annihilating (sp?) everything in their path.

But it would surely have been possible to blockade the Japanese islands - China and Russia control most of the surrounding seas and the Japanese Navy was extinct.

But what would the consequences of an eventual surrender by the last Nip standing have been? A discredited Emperor, no industry, a very resentful and hostile population that could not have been controlled by any victorious general. Certainly it would not have resulted in the Japan of the Seventies, growing faster than any other country in GDP and general prosperity.

As it was, General McArthur took over a thoroughly scared country, where the population had been 'pacified' in two enormous blows and were willing to do anything to keep this foreign monster from giving a third show. And this helped them get quickly back on their feet, excepting only those from the Hiroshima/Nagasaki areas, whose feet were falling off. I feel that the ensuing prosperity of Japan is due to the sudden, violent end to the war and immediate transformation into a satellite of the US. A frontal attack on the mainland, or a siege of the islands would not have had the same effect. It would have done far more damage to far more people and Japan would have lost the wealth it still retained - allowing it (with massive American aid) to get back on it's feet very quickly.

So I'd still have dropped the bomb - pity it couldn't have been done by Colonel Doolittle.

Short answer to your question about my choice would be...Yep.

Quoted below is Flying's response to my off-topic question in the Qadhafi thread. It is post number 61 on that thread.

_______________________________________________________

Flying said:

"As for your query of what if I were president Truman...

I will agree it is well off topic & better left for another topic.

But to put it as simply & briefly as possible....

I would never order the annihilation of a large civilian population

as a supposed means to a earlier end of a military war. Whats next? Invade a country & rape all the women & children

to put the next war to a sooner end? Is one less evil than the other? Evil is not disguised no matter the reasons claimed."

_______________________________________________________

So many here seem to say bombs away, or yep, or would do the same as Truman.

I am curious as to what is the justification for nuking a civilian area that made you say yes?

Is it the often used explanation of an earlier end to the war & saving American soldiers from dying in the fight?

I am curious as to what is the justification for nuking a civilian area that made you say yes?

Is it the often used explanation of an earlier end to the war & saving American soldiers from dying in the fight?

Not just American soldiers (or any soldiers), but the trauma to the whole population of the combatting countries.

Japan would not have rolled over and surrendered - it was not in their psyche.

As I said above, they would continue to resist until virtually no-one was left - even the Germans but uniforms on the youngest and oldest of the population and they do not have nearly the same outlook as the Japanese when it came to dying for one's Emperor.

Up until recently, a whole country was considered "the enemy" - not just their military - and if civilians got killed in order to destroy some kind of a military target, it was pretty much par for the course. Of course, troops that would specifically target civilians were considered criminal scum, just as they are by most people today.

There were some military targets in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and any country that had the bomb probably would have used it under the circumstances back then.

So many here seem to say bombs away, or yep, or would do the same as Truman.

I am curious as to what is the justification for nuking a civilian area that made you say yes?

Is it the often used explanation of an earlier end to the war & saving American soldiers from dying in the fight?

To expand further on my somewhat terse answer delivered earlier. My justification for the use of nuclear weapons is several-fold.

1. To reduce Japanese casualties. The Japanese mentality at that time was very militant, emanating from the Bushido code of warfare, which claimed surrender was the worst result of warfare as compared to dying for the Emperor as the best, short of winning that is. There was no way the Japanese nation was in position to win the war. However surrender was not a consideration, since it was so against their 2,000 year old code of warfare. It was fight to the death or defend their homeland by all possible means, inflict so many casualties on the Americans that the US would sue for peace and Japan would gain an honorable peace without conditions, regardless of the cost, both civilian and military, to the Japanese nation. They had completely ignored the Potsdam Declaration earlier in 1945, not even bothering to acknowledge its receipt.

It was estimated in various quarters the invasion of Japan would cost the lives of between 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 citizens. Choose the number you like but either way the number is quite large.

2. To reduce American casualties. Estimates vary widely on what the cost in lives would have been to the US forces in an invasion. I have read figures from 500,000 to 2,000,000 injured and dead. We do know the attack on Okinawa resulted in total US casualties of 49,151, Iwo Jima had a total of 26,821 US casualties and it is likely there would have been a fierce defense of the mainland by a much larger number of Japanese soldiers, therefore having the result of a much greater number of US casualties than anything previously experienced.

3. A naval blockade combined with continued US bombing of the Japanese mainland might have been a possibility to obtain the surrender of Japan. However, the bombing of Tokyo in March 1945 had caused casualties ranging from 80,000 to 200,00 deaths and had no visible impact on the Japanese leadership. Had we continued the bombing of the cities, the likelihood of deaths exceeding 1,000,000 to the Japanese population is not unthinkable. It would have been a catastrophic disaster for the nation of Japan and one from which they might never have recovered. The US would have suffered naval losses from the Japanese mainland since Japan would have launched kamikaze strikes until their air force was completely decimated. It is estimated they had some 5,000 aircraft so that might have sent quite a few US ships and their personnel to the bottom over a protracted period of time.

In conclusion, the bomb in Hiroshima killed an estimated 66,000 and the Nagasaki bomb killed an additional 39,000 civilians and military personnel. By the same token, the fire bombing of Tokyo in March 1945 resulted in the deaths of an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 Japanese and the Japanese rulers simply considered this the cost of war.

The Japanese military and Emperor could not ignore nuclear weapons.

While the bombing of the two targets was a terrible loss, an invasion of the mainland would have resulted in much greater misery and loss of life to both the Japanese and US nations.

...and therein lies my position.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-costs-war/

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#cite_ref-shockley_0-0

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall1.html

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/AtomBomb_Japan.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

Well.... everyone has their opinion & their right to it.

I am not here to say otherwise.

But I stand by my original short answer that evil is evil & cannot be justified in my mind by supposition.

It is on the one hand fine to make claims that it was done to save lives...But that outcome was never guaranteed.

It is also fine on the other hand for folks to say they condone it yet I have this feeling in the back of my mind that they would not condone the same if it were done to their civilian population.

I mean these justifications used...I would hope all who support them also agree then that it would be equally justified if an enemy of America did the same to America using of course the same reasons. Saving lives...on both sides..ending the war sooner..not risking soldiers to do their choosen job when instead you can wipe out massive civilian targets & hope it shocks the enemy into an early surrender.

I am just not wired that way myself. Japan attacked a military target yes...Pearl Harbor & got the US into the war. But they did not come ashore nor did they bomb Honolulu. I am not overlooking their war crimes either. Yes after the war some Japanese military were hung for torturing prisoners. Waterboarding prisoners & more.

But back to the meat of the matter justifying the obliteration of two hundred thousand mostly civilian population as a means to an end.

No sorry I am not able to do it.

I tend to agree more with these thoughts.....

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur

The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:

the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children

http://www.reformation.org/admiral-leahy.html

A lot of generals are not necessarily in favor of ending a war. That is their bread and butter; their source of power and prestige. I didn't notice any of them refusing to send troops to an almost certain death in battle after battle after battle.

And I won't even start on the political ambitions that would motivate such remarks. I will say, however, I very much doubt what they said had anything to do with care, concern or compassion for either allied soldiers or Japanese civilians.

Both Japan and Nazi Germany would have happily used it on us and it saved many Allied soldiers lives. It was pretty much Instant Karma anyway after the barbaric way that the Japanese conducted the war.

Well.... everyone has their opinion & their right to it.

I am not here to say otherwise.

But I stand by my original short answer that evil is evil & cannot be justified in my mind by supposition.

It is on the one hand fine to make claims that it was done to save lives...But that outcome was never guaranteed.

It is also fine on the other hand for folks to say they condone it yet I have this feeling in the back of my mind that they would not condone the same if it were done to their civilian population.

I mean these justifications used...I would hope all who support them also agree then that it would be equally justified if an enemy of America did the same to America using of course the same reasons. Saving lives...on both sides..ending the war sooner..not risking soldiers to do their choosen job when instead you can wipe out massive civilian targets & hope it shocks the enemy into an early surrender.

I am just not wired that way myself. Japan attacked a military target yes...Pearl Harbor & got the US into the war. But they did not come ashore nor did they bomb Honolulu. I am not overlooking their war crimes either. Yes after the war some Japanese military were hung for torturing prisoners. Waterboarding prisoners & more.

But back to the meat of the matter justifying the obliteration of two hundred thousand mostly civilian population as a means to an end.

No sorry I am not able to do it.

I tend to agree more with these thoughts.....

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur

The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:

the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children

http://www.reformation.org/admiral-leahy.html

Thank you for your thoughts. The original question was..."Would you have used the bomb or would you have invaded?"

Since you have discarded the idea of using the bomb, you have endorsed invasion.

Rather than risking the lives of 12 US airmen and one B-29 to deliver a bomb that killed some 66,000 Japanese in Hiroshima, you would prefer to risk the lives of 1,000,000 US servicemen, hundreds if not thousands of warships and countless aircraft to force the surrender of the nation of Japan, endangering the lives of millions of Japanese in the process.

Interesting.

Thank you for your thoughts. The original question was..."Would you have used the bomb or would you have invaded?"

Since you have discarded the idea of using the bomb, you have endorsed invasion.

Rather than risking the lives of 12 US airmen and one B-29 to deliver a bomb that killed some 66,000 Japanese in Hiroshima, you would prefer to risk the lives of 1,000,000 US servicemen, hundreds if not thousands of warships and countless aircraft to force the surrender of the nation of Japan, endangering the lives of millions of Japanese in the process.

Interesting.

Yes thank you for your thoughts too.

But at the same time your thoughts are not mine even if in this past post you seem to think they are by claiming what you assume to be agreed upon by me.

Yes I understand your theoretical question but I do not agree & I am sure many other military strategist did not agree then nor would they now agree with your choices.

In the school I attended military strategy was a required course. Among many things taught believe it or not was risk/reward strategy analogies.

While you are limited in your question to bomb or invade, in the real world those strategy limitations would not exist. Of course those two choices would be on the table but they would not be alone, there of course would be others.

Taking Hiroshima as an example..It was a city of something like 300,000 inhabitants...yes it contained some military element also but mainly it was a city. The harbor was mined & the US navy & Air Force was already by the time preceding the bomb in control of the waters surrounding Japan. Troops there on Hiroshima were already for all intents neutralized.

The same would probably be true in continued efforts.

Sorry I know your theoretical question included only 2 choices but the real world scenario included more.

Again I would not bomb/nuke a heavily populated civilian area as a means to an end.

I would also not invade given the risk to reward scenario you have claimed.

By the early summer of 45 the Japanese knew they were beaten.There were more strategic choices available.

Those which got us to that point of dominance would likely continue & increase our dominance.

But I stand by my original short answer that evil is evil & cannot be justified in my mind by supposition.

What if it was deemed to be the lesser of two evils?

I suspect there is an element of a new president "playing" with his new toy in the OP's opening question.

It had to be a tough call at the time I think and US political opinion would have played its part. The people wanted their sons brought home safe and well and hang the consequences.

Their president delivered on this.

Frankly in the same situation representing not only the US military but the thoughts and feelings of those at home I don't see anyone making an alternative decision. Pearl Harbor was fresh in the mind then as well....

I think it is naive to think that the consequences were not understood to a large degree.

To say that Japan would never surrender is quite an assumption.

Certainly the immediate physical consequences were well predicted.....Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were carefully chosen for their topography to maximise the effects of the bomb.

If I had been in Truman's shoes, I think I would have dropped the bombs, also on carefully selected targets that would have maximised the effects.......on non-populated areas. Such demonstrations had a good chance to change the stance of Japan.

Perhaps the people that had a childhood reading the comics and dime novels of the 1950\s and 1960's can't be blamed for their view that German's, Commies, Japs are all evil and barbaric and Captain America is the epitome of heroic goodness.

The propaganda had an influence from an early age.

I think it is naive to think that the consequences were not understood to a large degree.

To say that Japan would never surrender is quite an assumption.

Certainly the immediate physical consequences were well predicted.....Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were carefully chosen for their topography to maximise the effects of the bomb.

If I had been in Truman's shoes, I think I would have dropped the bombs, also on carefully selected targets that would have maximised the effects.......on non-populated areas. Such demonstrations had a good chance to change the stance of Japan.

It leaves me wondering from the Japanese perspective why they waited for the second bomb to drop befoer surrendering.

Can anyone shed some light on those few days from the japanese leadership of the time?

If I remember my history, after the first bomb was dropped, there was no attempt to warn the public of the bombing and the devastation it caused. Had they done so, the ordinary citizens could have left highly populated areas.

Perhaps the people that had a childhood reading the comics and dime novels of the 1950\s and 1960's can't be blamed for their view that German's, Commies, Japs are all evil and barbaric and Captain America is the epitome of heroic goodness.

The propaganda had an influence from an early age.

Of course, the Nazi Concentration Camps, the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking are just silly American comic book stuff. Those guys were just misunderstood.

If I remember my history, after the first bomb was dropped, there was no attempt to warn the public of the bombing and the devastation it caused. Had they done so, the ordinary citizens could have left highly populated areas.

The Japanese were dedicated to not surrendering and were probably pretty confused about the effects of the bomb. Communications were not so good back then and it probably took a while to get the government to realize that they had little choice about signing a peace treaty.

If I remember my history, after the first bomb was dropped, there was no attempt to warn the public of the bombing and the devastation it caused. Had they done so, the ordinary citizens could have left highly populated areas.

And the closed decision to nuke two [three was the original number] civilian instead of the expected strategic military targets was met with the upmost angst and disdain by a majority of high-ranking American military and political officials.....a lesser known background reference.