The Reason for the Bomb

[RedBeaconNY]

Alright, I know most of you guys hate it when people like me do stuff like this, but...

I'm preparing a debate for my AP American History class this upcoming Thursday. The topic is: Did we drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save American lives, or to intimidate the Soviets? My side of the argument is that it was indeed to save American lives. FreeRepublic has been a great resource again and again for me, and I was wondering if you had any good sources (or opinions) on the matter. I appreciate your help!

[RAY]

Many think that if the US Army Air Force had been allowed to continue with the fire bombing of Japanese cities, then lots more Japanese civilians would have been killed than were by the A-bombs.

The A-bombs were used to stop the war, which probably resulted in saving both Japanese and American lives.

[trubluolyguy]

Did we drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save American lives, or to intimidate the Soviets?

---

Yes.

[MNJohnnie]

Yes. The bloodiest battle in the Pacific were for Philippines, Iwo and Okinawa. Every step closer to the Japanese islands cost more and more American dead. The Kamikaze tactics were killing more and more American Sailors. Simply find and print out a chart of US Casualties and show graphically how US Casualties dead and wounded skyrocketed in the Pacific during 1944-45. Then show the civilian casualties on Sip an and Okinawa. Only pacific islands with major Japanese civilian populations. Post up how many of them died. Dropping the bombs save American AND Japanese lives. The facts are obvious to anyone who looks for for them.

[lonestar67]

Actually, both arguments have merit. If I were you I would try to consolidate the arguments somewhat.

You want to argue that the bombs saved American lives. Some experts believe that the homeland defense of Japan would have cost as many as one million American lives to complete.

The deterrence of the Soviets may have saved American lives as well since it demonstrated a willingness to use these harsh weapons. In light of FDR's capitulation at Yalta, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Stalin would construe US foreign policy as once again appeasement oriented-- inviting further Soviet attacks and potential pre emption against America.

Truman's caustic bombing probably sobered Soviet realpolitik and prevented a deadly assault on the globe and possibly America by the aspiring communist system.

[MNJohnnie]

Permise is false. Not an either or. Both are factually valid reasons to use the bombs. Another thing to consider. The food distribution network was breaking down. Japan was on the verge of wide spread starvations. Besiging Japan would of kill far more Japanese via starvation and disease then dropping the bombs did.

[theDentist]

Both, of course.

[ex-snook]

I can give you an opinion. I was doing occupation duty in Austria after France and Germany. We were concerned that we would be shipped out to the Pacific. When Truman dropped the bomb the war was over and we come come home. We looked at it as a way to end the war quickly. Nothing more, nothing less. No fancy reasons or second guessing. Ending the war was reason enough.

[Wings-n-Wind]

Old school proverb:
The primary purpose of war is to destroy the enemy and their will to fight.

The Japanese forces had been decimated on land, at sea, and in the air -- yet their worldview and mindset prevented them from accepting defeat. They would have fought with us on their homeland soil with even greater suicidal zeal.

I would beg the question and argue the point that ending the war through the strikes of August 1945 saved millions more lives on both sides of the conflict-- and prevented the general devastation to the Japanese homeland that would have surely occurred through a long and hard fought conventional air campaign and ground force invasion.

I would also argue that any good campaign planner and the battle commanders should prefer to use standoff weaponry and battlefield technology to minimize his own casualties and material losses. This is the principle of war called economy of force.

War will always be very ugly and very fatal -- and should be the last resort of any civilized nation-- but once forces are committed to the conflict -- you give them every possible advantage. Your troops' blood should be the last price paid for victory.

True peace only comes through victory -- it has never been "won" through a negotiated compromise.

Hope this helps.

[truemiester]

The greatest understatement in history was uttered August 6, 1945 by Emperor Hirohito of Japan.
"Did you hear something?"

[RedBeaconNY]

Revision: It was both, but I have to argue that it was the one more than the other.

[RedBeaconNY]

Thanks for your service.

[Gay State Conservative]

Both are factually valid reasons to use the bombs.

Can't agree with ya here.If there was a legitimate reason to drop the bomb on the Japanese....and I think a *very* powerful argument can be made that there were at least two...then that's fine.In such a scenario,if Truman's attitude was "hey,doing so would save 500,000 allied troops...and,as a bonus,it would scare the hell out of Stalin"...then it's all the better.

But doing it without a compelling reason that's directly connected to the war with Japan would have been wrong,IMO.

[MNJohnnie]

John Keegan "The Second World War" will give you a good documentary source for the reasons to drop the bomb. The best way to argue this is simply put the listeners in the mindset of what was THEN going on. Put it into the context of the finally 1.5 years of the war and the growing casualty lists. Remember also the The Battle of the Bulge aspect. Despite "everyone knowing" the Germans were on the ropes, they launched a surprise counter attack in Dec 1944 that killed an wounded more Americans then any other battle in Europe or North Africa. Kind of a knocked Washington's comfortable assumptions on their butt.

The Revisionists for political and emotional reasons look back and say "Because I know this now, they should of done that then". It is pure crap Methodology. The best way to defeat it is recreate the factual pict based on THEN and weed out all the after the fact Monday morning quarterbacking

[ex-snook]

"The Revisionists for political and emotional reasons look back and say "Because I know this now, they should of done that then". It is pure crap Methodology."

Well said. And I don't think Truman was a crapologist.

[MNJohnnie]

Nope. Many things I don't like about Truman but he actually meant it when he said the buck stops here. Thank you for your service Sir.

[Commander8]

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/truman.html
Heavily linked, and packed with quotes from historical figures of the day.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

I tend to believe it was to save lives. Although many were lost in that event, it was such a HUGE onslaught that the Japanese had to see. Basically, I think it scared the bejeezus out of them, so they called it quits. And that's what has to be done because some people will think of others as being pathetic little weaklings until they knock 'em over with a show of strength. I think it's sad that this has to be the case, but all you have to do is look at the Arab terrorists. They absolutely will not leave us alone unless they can see that we're not afraid of them and can't be whipped by them. Pathetic little losers, is what they really are...

[ex-snook]

You have to consider that Islam is an idea not a war machine like Nazi Germany or Japan. They are totally inept as a war machine. Together they don't have a world class military anything. They resort to car bombs, improvised devices or use our own planes. Reagan conquered the Communist idea with a better idea. Islam's greatest threat to us is demographics and immigration in which the West cooperates.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Yes, you are right. I do understand the difference between the two. But the result is the same-confusion. So it doesn't really matter what the source of confusion is. If the goal of any action is to confuse, it must be stopped immediately...