As most Japanese people were commited to fighting to the death, any city in Japan was a miltary target.

War is a terrible thing, period, but that is how mankind settles its differences and always has been.

a valid contribution to this thread would be a discussion based on the assumption that Dareios III had used nuclear weapons against Alexander the Great to avoid the battle at Issos in 333 B.C.

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.

So what would you have done?

The other main alternative would be a siege - blockade all ports and allow nothing to be landed. Thus the population would have to exist on local resources. As it is a fairly large country you are blockading, there will be ample food resources, even though it would probably be a limited variety.

The population would therefore survive, and would continue to believe in their superiority. (Believe me, having worked with many Japanese, they have a very high feeling of superiority, even now).

So the war could still be continuing now.

It's no good saying 'Oh, I would have done it differently.' unless you can put forward a viable alternative to the bomb / invade / siege options. The war has to end - and have a victor and vanquished. Otherwise you're like the two Koreas, still sniping across the border, still sinking each others' ships and still developing weapons.

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.

So what would you have done?

The other main alternative would be a siege - blockade all ports and allow nothing to be landed. Thus the population would have to exist on local resources. As it is a fairly large country you are blockading, there will be ample food resources, even though it would probably be a limited variety.

The population would therefore survive, and would continue to believe in their superiority. (Believe me, having worked with many Japanese, they have a very high feeling of superiority, even now).

So the war could still be continuing now.

It's no good saying 'Oh, I would have done it differently.' unless you can put forward a viable alternative to the bomb / invade / siege options. The war has to end - and have a victor and vanquished. Otherwise you're like the two Koreas, still sniping across the border, still sinking each others' ships and still developing weapons.

Well I thought my post was clear & you even quoted it.

I will highlight the parts that matter above

Superiority issues I will not comment as there seems to be plenty of that all over the world.

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?

Two evils do not make a right.

To chose what one deems a lesser evil does not excuse its evilness.

In one of my previous posts I quoted what some of the highest most experienced Generals & Admiral thought.

These are men of war. Men who have dedicated their lives to military strategy.

Yet men...at least of that generation still had a code of honor.

I do not think it was as one person said politically inclined nor do I believe they sought to prolong the war by not agreeing the bomb was useful. That is ignorance talking.

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?

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.

There is a lot of confusion on that issue & it is often misinterpreted that the Japanese would not surrender.

What they had a problem with was the term coined at the time of UNCONDITIONAL Surrender

The term was invented by Roosevelt. The term to which there could be no alternative included this clause...

That there be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest

It also warned that there would also be stern justice that would be handed out to all war criminals.

To the Japanese this meant their Emperor who remember in their minds was a divine direct descendant from the goddess of the sun could be hung as a war criminal.

It is too bad that was not clarified because Washington actually had no intention of prosecuting the Emperor but that info was never communicated to Japan.

But after Nagasaki they did & left the dynasty intact & also left Hirohito as Emperor.

Looked at this way it is easy to understand why folks thought Japan would never surrender. Because until this was known they would not have handed over their Emperor to sure death by hanging as a war criminal.

No other country would either is my guess. Even today if a war occurred between two great nations I doubt one would surrender thinking their leader would be killed. Add to that the religious beliefs they had about their Emperor being a divine descendant & well it is not hard to imagine.

So as UG said above...yes it was partly a lack of communications problem

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.

So what would you have done?

The other main alternative would be a siege - blockade all ports and allow nothing to be landed. Thus the population would have to exist on local resources. As it is a fairly large country you are blockading, there will be ample food resources, even though it would probably be a limited variety.

The population would therefore survive, and would continue to believe in their superiority. (Believe me, having worked with many Japanese, they have a very high feeling of superiority, even now).

So the war could still be continuing now.

It's no good saying 'Oh, I would have done it differently.' unless you can put forward a viable alternative to the bomb / invade / siege options. The war has to end - and have a victor and vanquished. Otherwise you're like the two Koreas, still sniping across the border, still sinking each others' ships and still developing weapons.

Well I thought my post was clear & you even quoted it.

I will highlight the parts that matter above

Superiority issues I will not comment as there seems to be plenty of that all over the world.

Mr. Flying:

Please provide us the "more strategic choices available" for use by HST at the time.

Mr. Bear:

A naval blockade alone would not have worked. The Japanese air force was estimated to still have some 5,000 usable aircraft which they would have likely used as suicide aircraft against the Allied ships. To protect the Allied fleet, an extensive air campaign would have to be used against the nation of Japan. The US had gained military air bases on Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa so B-29s could handle this job. In addition, the war in Europe had just ended so the US Air Force also had the 8th Air Force and its B-17 contingent available for use.

The Japanese were well and truly beaten, yet they would not surrender except on their own terms. I don't know of any US military or elected official that was willing to concede any points of surrender to their government. Even Admiral Leahy MIGHT have been against a condition surrender.

The Japanese were concerned about losing their Emperor and probably would have if it were not for General Douglas MacArthur. He is the one that insisted the Emperor be retained and not prosecuted for war crimes, as he probably should have been. This action saved Japan in the long run by permitting them to save face and rebuild.

By the way, the last Japanese soldier did not surrender until 1974.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/soldiersurr.htm

Mr. Flying:

Please provide us the "more strategic choices available" for use by HST at the time.

Sorry my writing skills must be terrible if your the 2nd to ask about something I thought was clear.

When I said....

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.

I meat it literally....

As in we were in control at that point....Meaning through the strategic actions which brought us there we were in control.

Those were the more strategic options. They could continue & unless something very remarkably changed the dominance would likely continue.

If Japan knew they were beaten by the summer of 45 how much longer could they have been a threat....if even a threat any longer existed at that point.

Your original post was a good question & I think most have weighed in & their positions are hopefully clear now

Mr. Flying:

Please provide us the "more strategic choices available" for use by HST at the time.

Sorry my writing skills must be terrible if your the 2nd to ask about something I thought was clear.

When I said....

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.

I meat it literally....

As in we were in control at that point....Meaning through the strategic actions which brought us there we were in control.

Those were the more strategic options. They could continue & unless something very remarkably changed the dominance would likely continue.

If Japan knew they were beaten by the summer of 45 how much longer could they have been a threat....if even a threat any longer existed at that point.

Your original post was a good question & I think most have weighed in & their positions are hopefully clear now

Thanks. This thread has been surprisingly civil.

Let me make a point here, however. The strategic options the US had been pursuing for the previous years (1942-1945) had been island hopping invasions to gain access to airfields and strategic locations inhabited by the Japanese. This option had consumed some 1,140,000 Japanese dead or missing (1937-1945 in Pacific Theater) and 95,660 US service members dead or missing in the PTO.

Invasion of Japanese occupied territory had been the successful working option up to August 1945.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm

Looked at this way it is easy to understand why folks thought Japan would never surrender. Because until this was known they would not have handed over their Emperor to sure death by hanging as a war criminal.

No other country would either is my guess.

Great Britain would hand over Charles in a nano-second.

Looked at this way it is easy to understand why folks thought Japan would never surrender. Because until this was known they would not have handed over their Emperor to sure death by hanging as a war criminal.

No other country would either is my guess.

Great Britain would hand over Charles in a nano-second.

He'd make the perfect trophy with those ears!

Thanks. This thread has been surprisingly civil.

Let me make a point here, however. The strategic options the US had been pursuing for the previous years (1942-1945) had been island hopping invasions to gain access to airfields and strategic locations inhabited by the Japanese. This option had consumed some 1,140,000 Japanese dead or missing (1937-1945 in Pacific Theater) and 95,660 US service members dead or missing in the PTO.

Invasion of Japanese occupied territory had been the successful working option up to August 1945.

http://pwencycl.kgbu.../Casualties.htm

Sound reasoning. Looking at it from another angle what would have been public opinion had the war dragged on for another couple of years for example with many more deaths on both sides. Then the US public learn that their president could have ended it all much sooner.

What would the reaction have been?

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.

OK, so there would be more than the two choices of to bomb or invade. Can you list some others? Which would you choose?

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?

I think it is pretty clear that if a single bomb that destroyed an entire city didn't motivate that Japanese to surrender then a demonstration on a non-populated area wouldn't have achieved anything. It's not like we had a stockpile of atomic bombs so targets had to be chosen carefully.

We as in We Americans.

I reiterate my comment as to whether the y would have felt the same about a ground and sea campaign later if they had known that nuclear weapons could have ended things much sooner.

That is one of the problems if you are the president. You are in a war. How do you explain to the widow of a dead serviceman that you elected not to use a weapon which could have meant her husband's survival? It isn't as simple as one life is the same as another. You are duty bound to protect those on your side. It may not be pleasant from a moral perspective, but war is a horrible thing.

What surprises me is so many are anxiously anticipating its return to the global theater. I have no doubt global war is coming back soon, and I have no doubt I am going to dread every second of it when it does.

Do I drop the bomb if I am the president? Probably. I wouldn't be able to look any widow in the face otherwise. And after I did it I would then probably voluntarily resign from my post and submit myself to a Japanese tribunal for war crimes. How do you live with yourself being forced to make that choice from one of 2 extremely bad options? You do what you think you have to do and then beg forgiveness is the only thing I can think of. I just don't see any other way.

.This thread has been surprisingly civil.

Its an interesting discussion and should remain so. If people want to argue the toss then can't you do it via PM please and let us debate an issue without flaming each other?

Cheers.

What do you expect zzaa to think when a certain mentally deficient Texan states words to the effect, "You're either with us or against us"?

I expect him to realize that we are talking about World War 2 and that the person you are refering to was not even born yet. I also expect him to understand that koheesti was using the word "We" to refer to his fellow Americans and not try twisting his statement to somehow include zzaa09.

This thread is about World War 2, so please drop the Bush nonsense.

I have removed some posts from view.

Pls. stop bickering, baiting etc. and try to discuss in a civil manner.

I notice a couple of posts have said what would the president have told widows of those that would have died instead of the use of the bomb which the assumption was & in hind sight correctly so that the war could end.

It is an interesting question or justification depending on where you sit.

I also wonder if the same question was asked of service men & families.....Meaning ask if we should use the bomb but also explain that we would be incinerating a couple of hundred thousand civilians/women/children etc.

What would their answer be?

I have no doubt that like Koheesti & UG pointed out .... when the term we bombed is used...Yes it means America as our leader at the time decided to do so. It is not like it could have been put up for a vote.

Also even if it was voted on.....I remember reading Gallup polls it was something in the range of 58-60% would have been in favor of the bomb. I am sure that many were angry at the unprovoked attack that got the US into the war so there is that.

But yes it is easy in hindsight to look back & wonder various scenarios. While I have stated I would never have done it I also realize the reasons many say they would.

I just ran across this collection of declassified US & Japanese documents (meeting minutes, Truman's Potsdam diary, Japanese diplomatic cables, etc) from the period just before the bomb was dropped. Scanned originals. Amazing stuff and a must read for anyone truly interested in this topic.

----------

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

This briefing book will not attempt to answer these questions or use primary sources to stake out positions on any of them. Nor will it attempt to substitute for the extraordinarily rich literature on the atomic bombs and the end of World War II. This collection does not attempt to document the origins and development of the Manhattan Project. Nor does it include any of the miscellaneous sources (interviews, documents prepared after the events, post-World War II correspondence, etc.) that participants in the debate have brought to bear in framing their arguments. Instead, by gaining access to a broad range of U.S. and Japanese documents from the spring and summer of 1945, interested readers can see for themselves the crucial source material that scholars have used to shape narrative accounts of the historical developments and to frame their arguments about the questions that have provoked controversy over the years. To help readers who are less familiar with the debates, commentary on some of the documents will point out, although far from comprehensively, some of the ways in which they have been interpreted. With direct access to the documents, readers may be able to develop their own answers to the questions raised above. The documents may even provoke new questions.

The U.S. documents cited here will be familiar to many expert readers on the Hiroshima-Nagasaki controversy. To provide a fuller picture of the transition from U.S.-Japanese antagonism to reconciliation, the editor has done what could be done within time and resource constraints to present information on the activities and points of view of Japanese policymakers and diplomats. This includes a number of formerly top secret summaries of intercepted Japanese diplomatic communications; the documents enable interested readers to form their own judgments about the direction of Japanese diplomacy in the weeks before the atomic bombings. Moreover, this briefing book includes new translations of Japanese primary sources on crucial events, including accounts of the conferences on August 9 and 14, where Emperor Hirohito made decisions to accept Allied terms of surrender. This material sheds light on the considerations that induced Japan 's surrender.

I just ran across this collection of declassified US & Japanese documents (meeting minutes, Truman's Potsdam diary, Japanese diplomatic cables, etc) from the period just before the bomb was dropped. Scanned originals. Amazing stuff and a must read for anyone truly interested in this topic.

From the end of that report......

VIII. Confronting the Problem of Radiation Poisoning

Document 76: Memorandum of Telephone Conversation Between General Groves and Lt. Col. Rea, Oak Ridge Hospital, 9:00 a.m., August 28,

Despite the reports pouring in from Japan about radiation sickness among the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Groves and Dr. Charles Rea were not ready to accept the evidence and dismissed the news as “propaganda”. For them the injuries were nothing more than “good thermal burns

I notice a couple of posts have said what would the president have told widows of those that would have died instead of the use of the bomb which the assumption was & in hind sight correctly so that the war could end.

It is an interesting question or justification depending on where you sit.

I also wonder if the same question was asked of service men & families.....Meaning ask if we should use the bomb but also explain that we would be incinerating a couple of hundred thousand civilians/women/children etc.

What would their answer be?

I have no doubt that like Koheesti & UG pointed out .... when the term we bombed is used...Yes it means America as our leader at the time decided to do so. It is not like it could have been put up for a vote.

Also even if it was voted on.....I remember reading Gallup polls it was something in the range of 58-60% would have been in favor of the bomb. I am sure that many were angry at the unprovoked attack that got the US into the war so there is that.

But yes it is easy in hindsight to look back & wonder various scenarios. While I have stated I would never have done it I also realize the reasons many say they would.

The bomb was most top secret at the time so only the highest ranking officers and political leaders would have even known of its availability or power. Having said that, however, I would think any US serviceman sitting on a ship or on a Pacific island waiting to be embarked on a ship to invade Japan was ecstatic when word came down that Japan had surrendered after the two bombs were used. Even those US Servicemen in Europe would have applauded the action since many of them were being told they were heading for the pacific.

I know the citizens of LA were happy as I went downtown with my mother and sister and joined in the VJ day celebration. I particularly recall all the paper that had been thrown around and how deep it was. I was seven years old and it seemed awfully deep to me at the time.

Interesting topic.

Given all the information that was known at the time I would have to give a qualified Yes to Truman's decision to use the Atomic Bomb.

Some things most people don't know:

1. Truman was put in an almost untenable situation by the Allied insistance on a "Unconditional Surrender" policy made by Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt earlier in the war... and that policy was applied both to Germany and Japan. For political reasons, Truman would have been unable to sell a Japanese surrender option to the American public in 1945... even it was possible to get one from the Japanese.

2. In fact, it is now known that in 1945 the entire arsenal of nuclear weapons in the U.S. inventory was a grand total of 3 bombs. Two were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so after that they had only one left.

(A 4th device was used in a secret test in Nevada to prove the bomb worked ... but it was not an actual bomb, but a working prototype used for testing only).

3. There was a backup plan, a two stage invasion of Japan by the allies was planned, if needed. U.S. intelligence estimated 1 to 1.5 million allied casulaties in the FIRST stage of the two-stage invasion and another 1.5 million in the 2nd stage.

4. The U.S. was also aware of the last ditch plan to defend Tokyo at all costs, which included deliberately sabotaging flood defences and dams to flood the Tokyo plain... and deliberately drowning hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians by that flooding.

5. Near the end of the the Russians siezed some of the Northern Japanese islands... and Allied intelligence was aware that after the surrender of Germany Russian troops were being transferred to the Russian far east...probably for an invasion of Japan from the North. That was a major concern for U.S. and allied military planners at the time.

6. Allied intelligence also was aware of plans by hard-line military leaders in Japan to stop the Emperor from any surrender speech, by killing him if necessary, and attempting to blame that asasination on U.S. bombers. The longer the war went on, the more likely this asasination was thought to possible... so ending the war was considered a priority at the time.

Anyhow, Truman knew all this at the time, and all these undoubtably entered into his choice to use the Atomic bomb. Fortunately for him, it worked.

The bomb was most top secret at the time so only the highest ranking officers and political leaders would have even known of its availability or power. Having said that, however, I would think any US serviceman sitting on a ship or on a Pacific island waiting to be embarked on a ship to invade Japan was ecstatic when word came down that Japan had surrendered after the two bombs were used. Even those US Servicemen in Europe would have applauded the action since many of them were being told they were heading for the pacific.

I know the citizens of LA were happy as I went downtown with my mother and sister and joined in the VJ day celebration. I particularly recall all the paper that had been thrown around and how deep it was. I was seven years old and it seemed awfully deep to me at the time.

Agreed & I thought I put that in my post but I see I did not. I know there was no way to ask opinion outside of the inner circle on the use of the bomb as it was after all war & top secret strategic command.

Also as I said I know the vote would have been pro bomb...A lot of that based on anger over the initial attack on Pearl & also as you said the option of not having to fight any further.