Was truman right to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?

I think the question explains itself.

There's been much revisionism over the years, mostly to the effect Japan was about to surrender anyway. The less popular theory is Truman wanted to keep the Soviets from helping him to win the war.

Both may be true. BUT.

But Japan would have negotiated for terms of surrender. They still held portions of Asia, notably China and Korea. they might have held on to that. The secret of the Atomic Bomb would have gotten out eventually, and then imagine a still militant Japan trying to make up for a major loss and working on a bomb of its own.

But Truman might have refused to recruit the Soviets into fighting Japan. A Soviet-Japanese non-aggression treaty was in effect at the time. Stalin might have chosen to fight Japan on his own, but that's far from a certainty.

Consider, too, what the US victories in the islands near Japan had been like. The Japanese fought tenaciously, and nearly always down to the last man. If they fought that way in their own Home Islands, casualties on both sides would have been horrific. And you're just as dead if you're killed in the grinder of a land war, than if you're killed by a nuclear weapon.

Massive deaths would take place anyway. The question would be how, where and for what.

If the US has to invade and defeat the Japanese in their own country the devastation would have been the same. The Japanese would not have quit in their own land readily. Instead of 2 nuclear bombs it would have been 10's of thousands of conventional bombs, the whole country would have been destroyed not 2 cities. Of course conventional bombs would not have been causing cancer for decades.

Quote: kenarman

If the US has to invade and defeat the Japanese in their own country the devastation would have been the same. The Japanese would not have quit in their own land readily. Instead of 2 nuclear bombs it would have been 10's of thousands of conventional bombs, the whole country would have been destroyed not 2 cities. Of course conventional bombs would not have been causing cancer for decades.

The dropping of the bombs saved perhaps 100,000 Japanese lives. Japan could not move, could not function, yet refused to surrender. It would have been an inch by inch fight. Then there is the elephant in the room. The USSR would have been helping us fight. There would have ended up a "North Japan" and "South Japan." Japan is the naval key to Asia. N Korea would have easily taken S Korea. Then the rest would be open. Asian manufacturing and resources would have been under USSR influence.

I never heard much about cancer from the bombs in Japan. Either it has been kept hidden or was not as bad as later bombs. I did hear about one guy survived BOTH bombs. Now there is a guy with 9 lives.

Quote: Nareed

I think the question explains itself.

There's been much revisionism over the years, mostly to the effect Japan was about to surrender anyway. The less popular theory is Truman wanted to keep the Soviets from helping him to win the war.

Both may be true. BUT.

But Japan would have negotiated for terms of surrender. .

Japan surrendering is totally bogus.
There may have been a few powerless govt officials that wanted it but overall no way was Japan surrendering.
Japan - bomb justified
Viet Nam - USA war crime

Quote: terapined

Japan surrendering is totally bogus.

I don't think so. They were in a bad way, their allies, such as they were, had surrendered already, and they were enduring terrible casualties.

But there is surrender, and there is unconditional surrender. The latter means you're being in effect conquered by the victor.

Had the emperor ordered a surrender, I think the military would have fallen into line. Had he ordered an unconditional surrender, I think he'd have found his head detached from his body in short order.

Now, what it would have taken for a surrender with terms? At the very least several more months of daily bombing attacks on the country, and a very credible threat of an invasion of the Home Islands. the thing is, a credible such threat requires being ready to have your bluff called.

An unconditional surrender might have required the actual invasion, involvement by the Soviets in China (which Japan largely held), for a longer time.


Now, why not stage a demonstration, rather than drop a bomb over a city with actual people?

I can see several reasons why not.

We possibly could have used the 2 bombs in a less devastating way and achieved the same result, but it's impossible to know the answer for sure.

If Custer had been a different man, things might have gone better for him. Or worse.

Today's nuclear war would likely be different than the cold war nuclear war. (for instance today they would likely strike Yellowstone on the chance that would end the US right then and there -- who knows what else everyone has come up with since then)

Truman dropped the second bomb to prove he had a second one. This made the Japanese and Russians think they had a third, a fourth and more. It wasn't a one trick pony.

Hirohito faced a very quick rebellion over his surrender, but once Russia was no longer neutral, the route to a negotiated peace via Stalin was lost, and the Japanese, subjected to more bombings, and loss of territory overseas as well, knew it was up.

There is a North/South Japan divide, all be it very minor. The Kuril islands were taken over by Russia at the end of WW2, but were Japanese territory before then. The Japanese inhabitants were forcibly migrated away from the area. Japan still claims sovereignty over the southern end of the chain, but are unlikely to see them ceded back from Russia.

Quote: TheCesspit

Truman dropped the second bomb to prove he had a second one. This made the Japanese and Russians think they had a third, a fourth and more. It wasn't a one trick pony.

There was also the fact that there was more need to prove Fat Man would work in battle. Little Boy was uranium and not even tested. Fat Man was IIRC Plutonium and far more complex. Even thought they exploded it in the desert, exploding a bomb in a test facility and in battle are two different things. At the time we could not make many uranium bombs, but could make several Plutonium ones. Though still not available in every corner store, it could be made far faster.

There was no way to see the future. There was no "right" and "wrong". There was just a path to choose, and results that are indifferent because there is no way of knowing what the world would look like had the other path been chosen.

Those who, at the time, considered nuclear reality as the opening of Pandora's box were correct, IMO. But the box was going to be opened regardless. It is actually sort of surprising that nuclear weapons have not been used since.

Quote: AZDuffman

There was also the fact that there was more need to prove Fat Man would work in battle. Little Boy was uranium and not even tested. Fat Man was IIRC Plutonium and far more complex. Even thought they exploded it in the desert, exploding a bomb in a test facility and in battle are two different things. At the time we could not make many uranium bombs, but could make several Plutonium ones. Though still not available in every corner store, it could be made far faster.

I think that was a secondary 'benefit' from dropping the implosion type bomb rather than a second gun-type, yes. No doubt planned for, but I'm not sure that was reason for dropping the second, or came into the balance of the question for Truman.

Radioactive-related cancers at both sites amounts to around 2,000. That's the long term effects, not the short 6-12 month window.