Opinion of the atomic bombings of Japan

[PJ]

Truman made the right call.

[tpfkaw]

Japan had already offered to surrender on the exact same terms that were ultimately given to them (unconditional surrender except royal family not tried for war crimes) in May of 1945.  There was absolutely no defense for using them even in realpolitik terms, much less moral.

[courts]

Japan had already offered to surrender on the exact same terms that were ultimately given to them (unconditional surrender except royal family not tried for war crimes) in May of 1945.  There was absolutely no defense for using them even in realpolitik terms, much less moral.

[Cory]

Japan had already offered to surrender on the exact same terms that were ultimately given to them (unconditional surrender except royal family not tried for war crimes) in May of 1945.  There was absolutely no defense for using them even in realpolitik terms, much less moral.

They probably wanted to intimidate the Soviets. Same reason we bombed Dresden in 1945.

[tpfkaw]

Japan had already offered to surrender on the exact same terms that were ultimately given to them (unconditional surrender except royal family not tried for war crimes) in May of 1945.  There was absolutely no defense for using them even in realpolitik terms, much less moral.

They probably wanted to intimidate the Soviets. Same reason we bombed Dresden in 1945.

A good way to do that would have been to not order Patton and others to halt their advance lest they take too much of Europe from the Soviets.

[Cory]

A good way to do that would have been to not order Patton and others to halt their advance lest they take too much of Europe from the Soviets.

The thing is that we had already made a deal with the Soviets involving demarcation lines and we wanted them to honor their deal to attack Japan after Germany was defeated.

We bombed Dresden so that advancing Soviet forces would see the destruction we could inflict on Soviet cities if they got any ideas. The atomic bombings of course added to that effect. The "Cold War" in reality had been going on since WWII.

[Del Tachi]

This poll is missing one option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "soft" targets that were selected because of the large presence of the military in and around these cities.   

Dropping the atom bomb in the middle of Tokyo--near the Imperial Palace--would have been much more effective.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This doesn't happen often, but I agree wholeheartedly with wormyguy. And anvi, of course.

This poll is missing one option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "soft" targets that were selected because of the large presence of the military in and around these cities.   

Dropping the atom bomb in the middle of Tokyo--near the Imperial Palace--would have been much more effective.

Oh my God.

[Reluctant Republican]

A Tragedy. I don't believe it was necessary, but even if the only options were the bombings or an invasion I don't think we should celebrate the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians. If it had to be used on a population at all, it should have been a solely military area.

[H. Ross Peron]

This poll is missing one option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "soft" targets that were selected because of the large presence of the military in and around these cities.   

Dropping the atom bomb in the middle of Tokyo--near the Imperial Palace--would have been much more effective.

If by "effective" you mean ensure that Japan does not surrender.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This poll is missing one option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "soft" targets that were selected because of the large presence of the military in and around these cities.   

Dropping the atom bomb in the middle of Tokyo--near the Imperial Palace--would have been much more effective.

If by "effective" you mean ensure that Japan does not surrender.

To go further, it may very well have ensured that nobody was left to surrender.

[Lurker]

This doesn't happen often, but I agree wholeheartedly with wormyguy. And anvi, of course.

This poll is missing one option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "soft" targets that were selected because of the large presence of the military in and around these cities.   

Dropping the atom bomb in the middle of Tokyo--near the Imperial Palace--would have been much more effective.

Oh my God.

The Imperial Palace was actually one of the potential targets for the Atomic Bomb. So while it would have been a horrible idea, it is not that far-fetched.

[Oakvale]

Truman made the right call.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This doesn't happen often, but I agree wholeheartedly with wormyguy. And anvi, of course.

This poll is missing one option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "soft" targets that were selected because of the large presence of the military in and around these cities.   

Dropping the atom bomb in the middle of Tokyo--near the Imperial Palace--would have been much more effective.

Oh my God.

The Imperial Palace was actually one of the potential targets for the Atomic Bomb. So while it would have been a horrible idea, it is not that far-fetched.

I know that. It's the fact that somebody is suggesting that it would have been 'more effective' now that...just...

[Del Tachi]

This doesn't happen often, but I agree wholeheartedly with wormyguy. And anvi, of course.

This poll is missing one option.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "soft" targets that were selected because of the large presence of the military in and around these cities.   

Dropping the atom bomb in the middle of Tokyo--near the Imperial Palace--would have been much more effective. 

Oh my God.

Dropping a singular atom bomb on Tokyo would be no more atrocious that dropping two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  By April 1945, 87 percent of Tokyo schoolchildren along with a large number of women and the elderly had been evacuated to more rural areas.  Moreover, a nuclear strike on Tokyo would have still been MUCH MUCH more humane than subjecting the entire Japanese population to a full-scale invasion by allied forces.

[H. Ross Peron]

Except killing off the Emperor would have meant the Japanese would have refused to surrender thus requiring 1) dropping more nukes, 2) a combination of a naval blockade and aerial bombardment, or 3) a land invasion.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Option 2.

Harry Truman also should have been sentenced to a life sentence by an international war crimes tribunal.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Option 1, of course.

[Cory]

Harry Truman also should have been sentenced to a life sentence by an international war crimes tribunal.

On what account? The bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII were not war crimes, it's called Total War for a reason. And to be fair I don't consider the German bombings of Britain or elsewhere to be war crimes either. The unfortunate fact is that those cities (and their citizens) were producing vital war materials for the enemy and were therefore targets.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Harry Truman also should have been sentenced to a life sentence by an international war crimes tribunal.

On what account? The bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII were not war crimes, it's called Total War for a reason. And to be fair I don't consider the German bombings of Britain or elsewhere to be war crimes either. The unfortunate fact is that those cities (and their citizens) were producing vital war materials for the enemy and were therefore targets.

Ah, the wise words of the forum's resident eugenicist...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would think that the sensible positions would be either that almost nothing done during the last stages of World War II, with some obvious exceptions, was a war crime--circumstances being what they were--or that a great deal of what was done during the last stages of World War II, with some obvious exceptions, was a war crime--circumstances being what they were. I would think that, and I would hope that most people of reasonable sensitivity would incline rather more towards the second option. Indeed, this applies to more or less any war of significant magnitude.

[Cory]

Ah, the wise words of the forum's resident eugenicist...

All because I support genetic engineering in humans does not mean I am a "Eugenicist". That word has a lot of connotations.

Also you didn't even respond to what I said.

[afleitch]

I would think that the sensible positions would be either that almost nothing done during World War II, with some obvious exceptions, was a war crime--circumstances being what they were--or that almost everything done during World War II, with some obvious exceptions, was a war crime--circumstances being what they were. I would think that, and I would hope that most people of reasonable sensitivity would incline rather more towards the second option.

I would not consider the defense of Britain (which was the main reason why we participated in the war from 1939 to the Normandy landings) a 'war crime' under any definition of the word.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ah, the wise words of the forum's resident eugenicist...

All because I support genetic engineering in humans does not mean I am a "Eugenicist".

It by definition does mean that.

I would think that the sensible positions would be either that almost nothing done during World War II, with some obvious exceptions, was a war crime--circumstances being what they were--or that almost everything done during World War II, with some obvious exceptions, was a war crime--circumstances being what they were. I would think that, and I would hope that most people of reasonable sensitivity would incline rather more towards the second option.

I would not consider the defense of Britain (which was the main reason why we participated in the war from 1939 to the Normandy landings) a 'war crime' under any definition of the word.

I had hoped that was one of the 'obvious exceptions'.

On further consideration I should probably edit the original post.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Probably Option 1 or 3.  While it was certainly a horrible event, it was necessary to end the war in the Pacific as soon as possible.  Without it, the war would have continued indefinitely at a potentially greater loss of life.