Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?

[politicus]

Good side of the nuclear weapons: no direct conflict between superpowers after 1945.
Korea, Vietnam (...) and Afganistan are small countries.

You can make at least two new polls with that.

1) Are proxy conflicts between superpowers morally justified?

2) Was Agent Orange morally justified?

3 (Optional) Was there a connection between Osama Bin Laden, the US and Afghanistan? Was morally justified supporting that guy?

Claiming that there was a "good side" in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... or Dresden and Tokyo for that matter... Japan was already defeated in August 1945, as it was Germany in February of that year. It was only a question of time.

And a lot of dead GIs.. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been extremely bloody.

[Velasco]

Yes, that's the usual argument. However, I wonder if an invasion of Japanese mainland was absolutely essential in order to make Japan surrender, sooner or later. For instance, there is a 1946 report:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Another question is the timing, the coincidence with the invasion of Manchuria by the Red Army, which took place between Hiroshima and Nagasaki but was previously planned in accordance to Tehran and Yalta agreements. Actually, there's controversy about the comparative importance of the bombings and the Soviet invasion in the Japanese surrender. I really don't know which event weighed more, but at the very least I think we should not endorse the 'official version' without further ado. On the other hand, the Cold War was already in the first stage. For some reason, Truman was anxious and expectant about the result of nuclear tests at Alamogordo while meeting with Stalin at Postdam.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I can't help but think racial issues lie behind the decision (as well as the firebombing campaign). The Americans did not join in (for the most part) on the ruthless RAF bombing attacks on German civilian targets, believing them to be crude and unneeded. On the Pacific front however, LeMay and his minions were allowed free reign on devastating Japanese cities.

Here's a Truman quote:

"The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true"

It seems that the Americans largely had completely dehumanised their enemy by this stage to the extent they had convinced themselves that the Japanese were monolithic and would never, ever surrender without being hurt.

Here's an interesting hypothetical actually (I believe it was first raised by Einstein): suppose Germany had developed two Fat Man style bombs and dropped them on, say, Hull and Portsmouth; but then ran out of bombs and surrender to the Allies. Would the Allies have regarded such an attack as a war crime? Or would they have shrugged it off? I know the phrase "winners write history" is trite nonsense for the most part, but it is interesting to consider. Is such an act only immoral if you lose?

[Famous Mortimer]

Another thing people forget, even if we only dropped the bomb to keep the Soviets out of the war, in retrospect, doing so was still a good thing. Imagine if half of Japan had been under Communist dictatorship for 40 years. It's even possible they could still have a Kimist type regime to this day.

[The Mikado]

I think there's a plausible scenario where the bombing of Nagasaki is avoided. That said, I can't fault Truman for the way this played out, and the longer the war went on, the more likely a situation where Soviet involvement ends up in giving the USSR more spoils of war in the East becomes likely (The island of Hokkaido becoming The People's Republic of Ezo?).

[Velasco]

It's plausible to think that the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido would have hastened Japanese surrender to the US. Nearly everything is possible when we speculate about counterfactual scenarios, if you think about it.

[Velasco]

Here's a Truman quote:

"The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true"

It seems that the Americans largely had completely dehumanised their enemy by this stage to the extent they had convinced themselves that the Japanese were monolithic and would never, ever surrender without being hurt.

I think that was probably a crucial aspect, in order to justify massive bombings and the final decision. Racial prejudice (few would disagree, given the existence of internment camps in American soil) and dehumanization. Good point. 

[H. Ross Peron]

I can't help but think racial issues lie behind the decision (as well as the firebombing campaign). The Americans did not join in (for the most part) on the ruthless RAF bombing attacks on German civilian targets, believing them to be crude and unneeded. On the Pacific front however, LeMay and his minions were allowed free reign on devastating Japanese cities.

Wasn't the atomic bomb originally developed for use against the Germans?

[politicus]

I know the phrase "winners write history" is trite nonsense for the most part, but it is interesting to consider. Is such an act only immoral if you lose?

Its a basic fact, not nonsense.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Perhaps "used to justify nonsense" is more appropriate? E.g. Sympathisers for axis powers, confederate or other such unpleasant groups will always throw out that idiom as part of their persecution complex.

@NatProg, it's hard to say. It was definitely developed out of fear of the German's project, but much of the race seemed to be just a race to get one; which explains why most of the Manhattan Project scientists turned squeamish at the prospect of using the bombs.

[Higgs]

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

Even if the alternative is much more lives lost?

[Extrabase500]

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

[Intell]

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

[Thunderbird is the word]

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm a lazy so I'll ask - Why were those two cities chosen.?  It seems to me Truman could have bombed more populous areas if his only intention was to kill as many people as possible.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'm a lazy so I'll ask - Why were those two cities chosen.?  It seems to me Truman could have bombed more populous areas if his only intention was to kill as many people as possible.

Much of Japan had already been brutally firebombed.

[ingemann]

I'm a lazy so I'll ask - Why were those two cities chosen.?  It seems to me Truman could have bombed more populous areas if his only intention was to kill as many people as possible.

Kyoto was meant as a alternate target, but it was dropped at the insistence of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (it's believed the reason was that he had his honeymoon there). Kyoto was also a city of much greater historical value (as the former capital). Tokyo was avoided because the American government wanted someone to negotiate after they had nuked the cities. As for civilian loss, I think we more or less saw the maximum loss of human lives. The early nukes was less efficient weapons than we usual think, but Japanese cities was more or less "perfect" for high loss of lives, as they was much more crowded than European and American cities, and was build to large extent of timber. If a nuke had been thrown on a German city, we would likely have seen a much smaller loss of lives, thank to German cities being both less crowded and mainly build in bricks.  

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I sincerely appreciate the historical updates.

[Cory]

It seems that the Americans largely had completely dehumanised their enemy by this stage to the extent they had convinced themselves that the Japanese were monolithic and would never, ever surrender without being hurt.

Well, it was true.