Was Using the A-Bomb Justified?

SuppressedNews.com | August 7, 2005 | Gary Palmer

[hildy123]

August 6 marks the sixtieth anniversary of the devastating atomic bomb attack against the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki.

For the most part, up until the 1960s the predominant view was that the U.S. was justified in its decision to use nuclear weapons against the Japanese. There was a general consensus to accept, at face value, that American leaders had determined that Japan would not surrender, and that their determination to fight to the death against an invasion would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not a million U.S. soldiers.

But with the anti-establishment mentality of the 1960s came a new cadre of revisionist historians who began casting the decision to nuke Japan in the context of racism against the Japanese and political opportunism as a show of force to the Soviets. Consequently, for 40 years revisionists have used the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to flog America's conscience.

For years critics of the decision have asserted that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary because Japan was so weakened militarily that they realized their situation was hopeless. The revisionists argue that Japan was seeking to negotiate a surrender prior to the bombings. But information from top secret intelligence documents by the U.S. code breaking operation called "Magic" and the British operation called "Ultra" that was declassified in the mid-1990s disclosed a decidedly different situation.

American code breakers had been deciphering Japanese military and diplomatic messages since just before the Battle of Midway. By the summer of 1945, "Magic" was deciphering millions of messages. From these messages President Truman and U.S. military leaders concluded that Japan would not agree to an unconditional surrender.

The revisionists insist otherwise. They point out that in the summer of 1945 the Japanese were seeking a compromised peace to end the war through their envoy to Russia. But based on intercepted Japanese communications, what Japan was trying to do was make a deal to keep the Soviet Union out of the war. What the Japanese military rulers really wanted was a deal that would allow their brutal military regime that started the war to stay in power, something the U.S. and the Allies would never have accepted.

Yet the revisionists persist that the primary obstacle that kept Japan from agreeing to an unconditional surrender was the perception that Emperor Hirohito would not be allowed to continue as emperor. According to the revisionists, the Japanese were so loyal to the Emperor that they would have fought to the death to protect him. While that may have been true for the majority of the Japanese, some of the top military leaders did not hold the Emperor in such high esteem. In fact, when Emperor Hirohito announced his decision to surrender, a group of hard-line Japanese military leaders attempted a coup to overthrow him. The coup failed.

Finally, according to the revisionists, the use of the A-bombs were unnecessary because Japan's military was so devastated that the war would have ended in a matter of weeks anyway. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith even asserted that the use of the A-bombs only shortened the war by two or three weeks at most. But Galbraith and other revisionists couldn't have been more wrong.

The Japanese had been sheltering their resources in anticipation of an American landing. At the time of the bombings, Japan had over 12,000 aircraft for use against U.S. forces. In terms of land forces, some post war estimates indicate that the Japanese defense forces on Kyushu, the first island targeted for invasion, may have outnumbered U.S. forces by a ratio of 3:2. Typically, an invasion force must outnumber defenders by a ratio of 3:1 to be successful. In addition, the Japanese had been training civilians, including children, for attacks against U.S. troops.

The Japanese plan was to inflict such heavy losses that the war weary Americans would seek a negotiated peace. And had the U.S. gone forward with the plans to land on the Kyushu, they would have suffered horrendous casualties. Pre-invasion casualty estimates anticipated the loss of from 100,000 to as many as 1 million American soldiers and from 5-10 million Japanese military and civilian deaths. It has been estimated that for every month that the war continued, between 250,000 to 400,000 Asian civilians still under Japanese occupation would have died.

Revisionists dismiss these estimates as justification for using the A-bombs. But as Dr. James Tent, a professor of history at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, points out, such a dismissal is indicative of the sheer arrogance of the revisionists who, decades after the fact and far removed from the reality of the situation, would presume to judge those who had to make those decisions.

While the revisionists can second-guess the use of such catastrophic weapons on primarily civilian targets, the fact remains that the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the end of the war much sooner than any of the other alternatives would have and in so doing saved millions of lives. Given that the Japanese were already responsible for 17 million deaths, it is not hard to conclude that using atomic weapons to end the war was justified.

[ladyjane]

Question: Was Using the A-Bomb Justified?

Answer: Was bombing Pearl Harbor justified?

[johnny7]

If I were Truman and didn't HAVE the A-bomb... I would'a thought long & hard about invading Japan at all. To throw away the lives of 20-30 thousand Americans, going town to stinking town is not an adventure in creative thought.

I think I would'a incendiary-bombed their a$$es until they pee'd gasoline and sh!tted fire.

[stuartcr]

Everyone seems to opeerate on the premise that we had to invade mainland Japan. It's an island, they had hardly any resources left, virtually no navy left...why couldn't we have just surrounded them and waited?

[tanknetter]

If Tokyo had already been roasted to a cinder by the earlier fire bombing, why nuke it?

Good question ... only thing I know is that I heard it come from General Tibbets himself at a seminar he spoke at not too long ago.

Some additional information, tho, can be found here. Apparently there was a desire for Tokyo to be the next target, but Hap Arnold had already settled on Sapporo for the next bomb (which is surprising, because I would think that they would have gone after the missed 8/9 primary, Kokura, instead).

[LS]

Well, we had pretty much done that. The island had NO imports, thanks to our subs; we were firebombing everything in sight. But there is only so much air power can do. Sooner or later, you have to occupy ground.

[Scythian]

No, it was morally wrong, think about it. Rather than fight thier army we killed thier women and children. I'm a hard core conservative but dropping atomic bombs on cities full of civilians so men don't have to fight is evil, in fact, it is what the terrorists are doing today.

[tanknetter]

Everyone seems to opeerate on the premise that we had to invade mainland Japan. It's an island, they had hardly any resources left, virtually no navy left...why couldn't we have just surrounded them and waited?

I'm of the belief that the invasion wouldn't have happened. If you read some of the original source material you'll find that the initial approval of the invasion by several of the major decision-makers (including Leahy, iirc) was conditional and only intended to allow planning and staging to move ahead. Magic indicated that the Japanese were holding back and stockpiling much of their remaining material (fuel, 6000-10,000 aircraft, etc) to be used to counter an invasion. I don't think that the senior military leadership would have given final approval in light of what they knew.

OTOH, there was a certain amount of war-weariness that was setting in with the American public. 200,000+ Asians were being killed every month on the mainland by the million or so Japanese troops still deployed there. And then there was the plight/fate of the allied POWs and internees to consider.

Even setting aside the possibility of an invasion and just looking at the effects on allied forces of a prolonged blockade, the atomic bomb comes out as the favored alternative. Throw in the effects of a prolonged blockaded on the Japanese people (who were about to experience mass-starvation) and the already solid case for using the bomb is further strengthened.

[tanknetter]

No, it was morally wrong, think about it. Rather than fight thier army we killed thier women and children. I'm a hard core conservative but dropping atomic bombs on cities full of civilians so men don't have to fight is evil, in fact, it is what the terrorists are doing today.

Hiroshima was a military city being used as a staging point for the 2nd Army. Nagasaki was a major industrial center supporting the war effort (the superbattleship Musashi had been built there). The vast majority of their populations were actively involved in materially supporting the war effort. They were completely legitimate military targets.

Beyond that, if you look at the training that the public was receiving (women being trained to attack US soldiers with bamboo spears, children being taught how to strap explosives to themselves and charge US tanks), it becomes clear that there were few, if any, true "innocents" on the receiving end of the bomb. The ENTIRE Japanese populace, including womena and children, was being mobilized to fight.

[Scythian]

No, it was morally wrong, think about it. Rather than fight thier army we killed thier women and children. I'm a hard core conservative but dropping atomic bombs on cities full of civilians so men don't have to fight is evil, in fact, it is what the terrorists are doing today.

I would like to take this futher and pose this question.

Obviously Al-Dufus cannot mount an army that can challenge ours, but they could possibly kill millions of civilians, destroy our economy and possibly force us to surrender, or render it such that it doesn't matter whether we surrender or not. No, dropping the A-Bomb was wrong. If you cannot defeat an enemy you do not kill tens of thousands of women and children to force them to surrender. And how do you know if you can defeat an enemy until you've tried, all was not lost when we droppped them bomb

Flame on ...

[tanknetter]

Obviously Al-Dufus cannot mount an army that can challenge ours, but they could possibly kill millions of civilians, destroy our economy and possibly force us to surrender, or render it such that it doesn't matter whether we surrender or not. No, dropping the A-Bomb was wrong. If you cannot defeat an enemy you do not kill tens of thousands of women and children to force them to surrender. And how do you know if you can defeat an enemy until you've tried, all was not lost when we droppped them bomb

No need to flame. One only needs to point out what had happened on Okinawa (mass suicide, and murder of Japanese civillians by Japanese soldiers as a way to avoid the "dishonor" of surrender) a few short months before to show that the very basis for your belief is wrong.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed Japan to surrender while "saving face" (an incredibly important component of their national culture). Even the largest estimates, which have around 350,000 dying as a result of the attacks, pale in comparison to what would have happened to the Japanese public (including women and children) when mass starvation set in that winter.

And again, that isn't counting what was happening to the Chinese and other Asians who were still dealing with the 1 million + Japanese soldiers on the mainland (200,000 dead per month).

[Scythian]

Well, I guess we just disagree, fearing something might happen is no reason to drop an atomic bomb on a city, sorry man, I think there is a lot of hype and self justification in the history on this. It goes against "Just War" period, it was wrong.

[stuartcr]

As I said, I doubt we will ever know the truth about why, and if we really needed to, use it. We do know, though, that it stopped, and sent a definite message, to Russia.

[The Red Zone]

Funny that God in the O.T. didn't bother with that "your warriors against mine in an honor match" stuff. When He showed His wrath, it was "wipe 'em out till they say uncle" time.

[Cvengr]

Good post, although I would ask the author if any query into using the A-Bomb by a generation far removed from WWII could ever be justified? IMHO, far less so, than the prudent decisions of a nation facing far more direct consequences.

[Dan(9698)]

You are not a conservative, you are a troll.

[marty60]

Ditto.

[Scythian]

But He is the author of life, we are not.

[Scythian]

You are not a conservative, you are a troll.

Whatever

[The Red Zone]

The Author of Life never bothered to tell Roman soldiers to quit their army.

[tanknetter]

fearing something might happen is no reason to drop an atomic bomb on a city,

You speak as if the behavior patterns of the Japanese weren't known. In reply I'd give you Tarawa. Saipan. Guam. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. The list of examples where the Japanese demonstrated a very specific pattern of behavior in this regards goes on and on and on. It's almost easier to point out the exceptions (if there really are any).

There was no "fear" of something that was just assumed or hypothetical. There was solid, demonstrable knowledge, based on both past experiences and intelligence decrypts, that the Japanese were prepared to commit national suicide rather than surrender.