Was there another option to dropping atomic bombs on Japan?

American Thinker ^ | 08/12/25 | James Zumwalt

[SeekAndFind]

With the passing last week of the 80th anniversary of the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima (on August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (three days later), familiar questions once again arise about our having done so. These include whether it was absolutely necessary in order to bring an end to the war, and whether or not there was any alternative to the two bomb attacks?

Addressing the second question first, an alternative option had been discussed. It involved providing the Japanese with a demonstration by dropping an atomic bomb on an uninhabited island. But such a demonstration involved risks.

As a new weapon of war, the atomic bomb—although it had been tested in the U.S.—raised concerns whether a demonstration might go wrong, resulting in a failed detonation. Such a failure would only embarrass the U.S. and undoubtedly motivate Japanese resolve further not to surrender.

Concerning the second question, the U.S. recognized the Japanese were preparing to defend—at all costs—their island nation against an invasion. They were doing so by activating every able-bodied civilian to fight to the death. The U.S. estimated such Japanese determination would result in at least one million Allied casualties and untold millions of casualties for the Japanese.

Anyone today who doubts the depths of that resolve to continue fighting need only consider how long it took the two last Japanese soldiers—out of hundreds who did so—to surrender.

Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda spent 29 years after the war, until 1974, hiding from the Allies in the jungles of the Philippines, only surrendering when his former commanding officer went there and ordered him to do so. He was followed later that year by Private Teruo Nakamura, who was in Indonesia, and is the last known Japanese soldier to surrender.

[SeekAndFind]

With such a strong resolve, President Harry Truman realized the only way to ensure Japan would agree to an unconditional surrender was for its leaders to witness firsthand the bomb’s destructive power. Unknown to the Japanese was just how many of these weapons the U.S. had in its inventory.

We had built three, with one already expended in New Mexico to test its viability. Thus, we were left with only two. While a fourth bomb was in the works, the U.S. had to go with what it had.

[volare737]

Of course there was another option, but it was much worse!

[SkyDancer]

It’s interesting how historians or readers of history like to second guess what people did eighty or more years ago not actually having lived during that time. People were plain tired of war and were wanting an end to it. Okinawa was a good example of what our forces would have had to contend with if we had to invade Japan.

[albie]

There was no other option. Japan was hell bent on world domination. U.S. military POW’s were dealt with mercilessly. The Japanese army was cruel and their devotion to the Emperor was anything goes.

[Dr. Zzyzx]

I’ve noticed at trend that seems to indicate that you’re not considered a serious historian until you come up with a stupid new idea to make past leaders look bad.

[metmom]

every stinking year this issue comes up and it’s all useless speculation because it doesn’t change what happened.

It was done. The war ended.

Life went on and now Japan is prosperous and safe.

[Retain Mike]

Here is the letter I sent to papers and commentators about the decision. I also sent a 3,600 word essay to a couple sources

Truman’s Decision to Drop the Atomic Bombs

Harry Truman appointed a civilian committee to provide recommendations about the alternatives for using atomic bombs. Henry Stimson would chair. The members would be James Bryant Conant, president of Harvard and chairman of the National Defense Research Committee; Karl T. Compton president of MIT; Vannevar Bush president of the Carnegie Institute in Washington and director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development; Ralph A. Bard Undersecretary of the Navy and a former Chicago financier; William L. Clayton Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs with specialty in international trade; George L. Harrison president of New York Life Insurance Company and Stinson’s special assistant on matters related to the atomic bomb project; and Jimmy Burns as Truman’s personal representative. Later an advisory committee of four physicists actively involved in development joined them. They were Enrico Fermi and Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; Ernest O. Lawrence of the Radiation Laboratory at University California Berkley; and J. Robert Oppenheimer head of the Los Alamos Laboratory where the bombs were being assembled.

The committee and scientific panel reached three unanimous conclusions, which Truman reluctantly agreed to, because he could see no alternative.

The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.

It should be used against war plants surrounded by workers’ homes and other buildings susceptible to damage, in order to make as profound a psychological impression on as many inhabitants as possible.

It should be used without warning.

Partial Bibliography:

The Atomic Bomb and the End of WW II, The National Security Archive

Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy, (1971) David Bergamni

The Making of the Atomic Bomb Richard Rhodes

[dfwgator]

I’ve noticed at trend that seems to indicate that you’re not considered a serious historian until you come up with a stupid new idea to make past leaders look bad.

---

Started with Howard Zinn.

[KarlInOhio]

Continuous firebombing of every Japanese city along with sinking any ship trying to approach port. After a year or so of that, every Japanese except for the leadership would be starved to death.

[rlmorel]

What irritates the crap out of me every year is the pathetic hand-wringing that happens every year.

My dad was pictured here speaking on Memorial Day in 1995 which was the 50th year anniversary of the dropping of the bomb, and the next day the newspaper in our region said "Memorial Day Veteran criticized for Memorial Day comments". I don't have his exact words, but they were something like: "We all supported the dropping of the bomb. We thought if we had more, we should have used them until the war ended."

My dad had just got out of a V-12 program at the end of June 1945, and was on his way to the Pacific for duty. He never had the slightest twinge of conscience about dropping the bombs, and the criticism didn't bother him a bit.

It was war, total war. And after what we had gone through with the Japanese in the Pacific, and seen what they were capable of (read about what they did to civilians even as late as their defense of Manila where they were executing thousands of civilians a day, and even tying them onto buildings against artillery we were firing point-blank into in an effort to degrade their entrenchment. (The Japanese refused to declare Manila an open city to prevent its destruction, it was considered by many to be one of the most beautiful cities in Asia up to that point)

I am of the opinion that dropping of the bombs had a beneficial effect rarely spoken of that I am aware of...if the bombs hadn't been used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the entire world was witness to what they could do, they almost certainly would have been used at some later point during the Cold War (or even today). It was a real-world deterrent to their use.

[PGR88]

The standard debate simply not consider the effect the Atom Bomb had on the internal debate that was taking place at the highest levels of Japanese Government.

The Atom-bombs (combined with the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria) gave the Japanese “Peace Faction” the upper-hand they needed against the hardcore militarists to say “stop the war” and “let’s surrender to the Americans, rather than get wiped out by the Soviets and face Communism at home”

[Rappini]

A close friend of mine was one of the soldiers who was set for the invasion of Japan, some 500,000 strong. They were then told its off we dropped the Bombs on the Japs.

[Tell It Right]

There was only one way to fight the war with Japan: fight however hard it took to force them to surrender. Japan didn't surrender after the Doolittle Raid, nor after the island hoppings, nor after the more conventional air raids over Japan. Nor did Japan surrender after the first a-bomb.

Evidently all of that wasn't enough to make Japan surrender. So the 2nd a-bomb had to be dropped. That was enough. All discussions about possible other strategies doesn't take into account the historical facts that Japan didn't surrender until the 2nd a-bomb was dropped. Nothing short of two a-bombs would have done the job.

[nwrep]

Thank God for the bombs. The Japanese were lucky to have received the bombs and emerged all the better for it. Thank you, President Truman!

[lgjhn23]

The only other option was to invade, conquer and bring Japan to her knees.
Because of their culture, their entire nation would fight to their death before surrounding to an invasion.
Regardless, U.S. Forces were preparing to do just that.
The cost in lives and treasure would have been enormous....for both sides.
The nukes, as devestating as they were, prevented millions more on both sides from being killed, most likely, including my father.

[Bernard]

Whenever I see a Facebook discussion on this, I always wonder how many people who say we should not have done it would be here today if Grandpa never came back from the invasion force.

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. estimated such Japanese determination would result in at least one million Allied casualties and untold millions of casualties for the Japanese.

I’ve never understood the gullible fixation on presumptuous statements like this — as if an invasion of the Japanese mainland was even necessary for the U.S. to win the war.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Had they mounted a 200 plane raid on each city, dropping HE and Incendiary bombs doing and killing the same number, no one today would have said a word.
But then we still might have had to invade the mainland. For all the Naysayers out there today, Would YOU be willing to take the places of US servicemen in landing craft under fire going into a Hostile japan?

[grumpygresh]

Okinawa is the southernmost island of Japan-its a part of Japan. US casualties 80k, Japan 110k.
Bomb dropped.
After that a test landing and invasion of Japan, no casualties.
Just think if US invaded Japan and had 20k casualties after a month-a very low estimate. Then someone leaks to press that US has a bomb that could end the war?
What would be the public’s reaction?
If the US then went on to drop the bomb later and the war ended; what would be the reaction of soldiers families whose sons, brothers and fathers were lost?
It would be very difficult for Truman to stay in office.