World War II: Atomic Bombs?

[RINO Tom]

Obviously, many opinions on this question are going to be nuanced, but try to pick the answer you most agree with.  In short, do you believe the United States made the correct call in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan at the end of World War II in an effort to force Japanese surrender and avoid a land invasion of Japan?

... been rewatching WWII in Colour on Netflix.

[American_Aristocracy]

I would have chose the atomic bomb over Operation Downfall.

[Gass3268]

Hiroshima: Yes
Nagasaki: Not Sure

Net Yes

[Alabama_Indy10]

Of course it was the right decision.

[Dukakisite1988]

Regardless, the GREAT Michael Dukakis could have handled the situation in a more competent manner than Truman, Dewey, FDR

[here2view]

Of course it was the right decision.

The only other option was an invasion which would have resulted in close to a million American deaths. Pretty easy decision considering how steadfast Japan was in not surrendering.

The use of both bombs showed its' true potential to the world, and may have prevented them from being used during the Cold War when they were more powerful.

Unequivocally the right choice.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

NO

[SWE]

No. That they were necessary to end the war and prevent a more devastating land invasion is something I see affirmed often as though it's self-evident, but I've seen little evidence to suggest this is actually the case. Alternative options, such as pursuing a negotiated, conditional surrender or using the bombs on an uninhabited island as a warning were not even explored. General Douglas McArthur was not even consulted on the matter, and he would have been against it, as was General Eisenhower. Ultimately, the decision to drop the bombs was a political move, intended to show off American strength at the expense of the lives of Japanese civilians. Maybe if an honest exploration of what the options were took place, the use of the atomic bombs may have turned out to be the least undesirable outcome and their usage could have been defensible, but I cannot in good faith endorse the decision as it was actually carried out.

Not to mention consequentialism is bad.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Japan voted against surrendering even after the first bomb

[Cory]

Alternative options, such as pursuing a negotiated, conditional surrender

Yeah, NOT AN OPTION.

or using the bombs on an uninhabited island as a warning were not even explored.

They didn't surrender after Hiroshima, why would they surrender after a mere display?

General Douglas McArthur was not even consulted on the matter, and he would have been against it, as was General Eisenhower.

So?

Ultimately, the decision to drop the bombs was a political move, intended to show off American strength at the expense of the lives of Japanese civilians.

It was , that's true. Bit it was also a military move to force a quick and final end to the war.

Maybe if an honest exploration of what the options were took place, the use of the atomic bombs may have turned out to be the least undesirable outcome and their usage could have been defensible, but I cannot in good faith endorse the decision as it was actually carried out.

It did. They decided that saving the lives of upwards of a million US soldiers and countless Japanese civilians and military forces was worth it to use the bombs.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Yes, unfortunately. The Japanese wouldn't surrender and it saved a countless number of American and Japanese lives from a land invasion of Tokyo.

[Intell]

Such means do not justify the end.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

They were an act of political agression by the Truman administration, and most of the generals didn't believe they ultimately were needed (even madmen like MacArthur and LeMay). The US government massaged their own figures on a potential invasion, ignored the fact that the Soviets had just joined in (or more to the point, were scared the Soviets would be able to take credit and additional influence), ignored intelligence of members of the Japanese cabinet trying to seek peace and ignored pleas from Manhattan Project scientists to drop the bomb in a non-populated area as a warning.

[Sirius_]

Probably not on Hiroshima, hell no on Nagasaki. So no in the end. We had the capability to force Japan to surrender without invading or committing what I see as an act of genocide. Their war machine had just about run out of fuel by that point. It wasn't going to take much longer.

[Small L]

Against. It was state terrorism, and state terrorism is never justified.

Here are some articles that express my opinion on the issue:

http://www.ifac.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/Anscombe-truman.pdf

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2002/11/27/0000184966

https://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/08/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-single-greatest-acts-terrorism-human-history

Didn't we already have a thread on this a couple weeks ago?

[RINO Tom]

Obvious yes for me.  They were clearly needed.