Truman Using the Atomic Bomb

[Nation]

Trying to stir up some new discussion around here.  Was the use of the atom bomb justified? Would the Japanese have surrendered anyway?  Were more lives REALLY saved?  Would a modern-day Democrat order the use of atomic/nuclear weaponry if the situation called for it?

[Blue Rectangle]

"new discussion"?  Sounds old to me...
Justified?  Yes.
Surrender?  Eventually, yes.
Lives saves? Absolutely.  And considering both my grandfathers fought in the Pacific, I wouldn't be here if Truman had fought it out to the end.

Modern-day Democrats:  Tough one.  I'd say no.  I imagine Clinton would have not used nukes, but instead would have spent ten years and about a million cruise missiles to level every structure in Japan.

I believe the last Democratic president to threaten nukes was Carter, who warned the Soviets against pushing through to the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf when they invaded Afghanistan.  I doubt if this was taken seriously by anyone here or there.

[Cashcow]

It was justified in every sense of the word, and the fact that he had the guts to end the war so quickly is another reason why he's our best president.

[AuH2O]

no

[John Dibble]

Well, I can say that a land based invasion would have been hell on our troops, so it was a better option than that at the very least.

[David S]

It was definitely justified to save American troops.

[Jake]

This question can only be answered if another question is proven one way or another.

Would Japan had given up that fall after experiencing an economic die off and famine?

If the answer is yes, than the bomb was justified only in saving Japanese lives.

If the answer is no, the bomb was justified to save not only the thousands of marines and GIs that would've died on the rocky beaches of Kyushu, but the thousands of Japanese that were ready to kill any American they saw, even though they were out matched.

Generally, I look at it this way. On an equal trade off, life for life, the uses of the atom bomb was justified, simply because it saved the lives of millions in exchange for the lives of a few hundred thousand. Now, morally, any loss of life is terrible, but the bomb's usage was justified to save other's lives.

[Cashcow]

no

Feeling articulate today?

[A18]

I don't know much of the history surrounding it, but if it'd save American lives, I'd drop another three or four.

[Rob]

It was a great decision. It saved many lives (American AND Japanese), and it forced the war to an earlier conclusion.

[Cashcow]

I don't know much of the history surrounding it, but if it'd save American lives, I'd drop another three or four.

...when two did the job, we can drop more just for fun

[Lunar]

I don't know much of the history surrounding it, but if it'd save American lives, I'd drop another three or four.

Why would killing an extra million Japanese citizens end the war sooner than Little Boy and Fat Man?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't know much of the history surrounding it, but if it'd save American lives, I'd drop another three or four.

Yeah, I heard some Japanese guy murdered an American last year. If we carpet-nuked all of Japan, that murder would never occur.

[A18]

I assumed we were talking about Truman using the atomic bomb near the end of World War II. You know, hence the title "Truman Using the Atomic Bomb."

[dazzleman]

Yes, I believe that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan by Pres. Truman was justified.

First, he had no choice.  If he had invaded Japan at a huge cost in lives, and people discovered there was a weapon that could have saved those lives, he'd have been literally hung from a lamppost on Constitution Avenue.

The Japanese would not have surrendered without a very bloody invasion that would have cost a lot more lives, both American AND Japanese, than were killed by the atomic bombs.

The atomic bombs also gave the Japanese a face-saving way out, confronting them with such supernatural force that they had the excuse they needed to surrender honorably.

One thing a lot of people don't know is that radical elements in the Japanese military almost torpedoed the signing of the surrender documents on the USS Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945.  Even after 2 atomic bombs, they planned to attack the ship during the signing of the surrender documents.  These people would not have given up without a show of overwhelming force, or a very costly and bloody invasion to strangle them.  It was absolutely necessary, and the right thing to do, for Pres. Truman to use those bombs.

[migrendel]

I do not believe it was justified. The war would have lasted longer, and perhaps taken more lives, but the United States would not have been the one to begin an historical epoch which led to years of terror. Also, Nagasaki was a particularly odious example of the demonstration of raw military capability, akin to the tactically pointless firebombing of Dresden, which could have claimed as many as 135,000 lives, as well as the similarly deadly and purposeless air raid on Tokyo that Curtis LeMay directed. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the largest moral crimes in recent history.

[TX_1824]

I don't know, but I thought the holocaust ranked right up there among the most moral crimes in recent history.

[Jake]

I do not believe it was justified. The war would have lasted longer, and perhaps taken more lives, but the United States would not have been the one to begin an historical epoch which led to years of terror. Also, Nagasaki was a particularly odious example of the demonstration of raw military capability, akin to the tactically pointless firebombing of Dresden, which could have claimed as many as 135,000 lives, as well as the similarly deadly and purposeless air raid on Tokyo that Curtis LeMay directed. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the largest moral crimes in recent history.

We roasted a few hundred thousand Nips to save a few hundred thousand Americans. I'll make that trade any day of the week.

[migrendel]

The Holocaust doubtlessly was a moral crime, and I think intervention was justified. In fact, we should have seen this threat and saved republican Spain years before. But I don't see how the lives of the Jews were any more valuable than those of the Japanese who were killed.

[Bono]

"new discussion"?  Sounds old to me...
Justified?  Yes.
Surrender?  Eventually, yes.
Lives saves? Absolutely.  And considering both my grandfathers fought in the Pacific, I wouldn't be here if Truman had fought it out to the end.

YOu can't be so sure. Lots of people survived the whole WWI, which was much worse for soldiers than WWII.

[Bono]

The Holocaust doubtlessly was a moral crime, and I think intervention was justified. In fact, we should have seen this threat and saved republican Spain years before. But I don't see how the lives of the Jews were any more valuable than those of the Japanese who were killed.

You mean they should've intervend on the side of the republicans, one of the most murderous gang of all?

In his book Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century  Robert Royal states that The Republicans killed at least 6,832 priests and nuns including 13 Bishops. The priests were often burned alive and mutilated while the nuns were raped. Bishops were tortured and executed in front of entire towns. They destroyed every single church they could. In Modern TImes, Paul Johnson estimates that the Republicans slaughtered 50,000 civilians. In spite of these facts, the Catholic Church is still criticized for supporting the Nationalists.
Franco wasn't even a very bloody dictator(none of the two peninsular dictators was, adn I think it's safe to say Franco was more benign than Salazar. Plus, the republicans had plenty f support from Stalin.

[migrendel]

In the end, I would be far more comfortable on the side of a group of murderous but well-intentioned leftists with a legitimate claim on Spain than a group of murderous and poorly-intentioned rightists with no such claim.

[Bono]

In the end, I would be far more comfortable on the side of a group of murderous but well-intentioned leftists with a legitimate claim on Spain than a group of murderous and poorly-intentioned rightists with no such claim.

Except FDR was in neither side. The only thing he didn't do wrong.

[zorkpolitics]

Absolutely is was the most human choice Truman had.  Drop two bombs kill 200,000 people and end the war Vs attack Japan, grind out 500,000 to 2,000,000 dead.
Even a blockade/siege of Japan would have killed millions from bombardments and starvation before the Japanese surrendered.
Its a revisionist fantasy to think the xenophobic Japanese would ever surrender to mere barbarians (fight to the last man was the Japanese way).  Only a radical chang to warfare embodied by the atomic bomb provided an honorable way for the japanese to surrender.

[dazzleman]

Absolutely is was the most human choice Truman had.  Drop two bombs kill 200,000 people and end the war Vs attack Japan, grind out 500,000 to 2,000,000 dead.
Even a blockade/siege of Japan would have killed millions from bombardments and starvation before the Japanese surrendered.
Its a revisionist fantasy to think the xenophobic Japanese would ever surrender to mere barbarians (fight to the last man was the Japanese way).  Only a radical chang to warfare embodied by the atomic bomb provided an honorable way for the japanese to surrender.

Absolutely.  Dude, I almost always agree with what you post.