Was truman right to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?

Quote: Pacomartin

The movie "Fat Man and Little Boy" suggested that the real ethical question should not be about dropping the bomb in the war, but the decision to produce large numbers of bombs from 1945 to 1949 when the USA was the sole possessor of the technology.

I just saw some doc on Netflix about the arms race. Until the early 1970s, the USA had the Russians in a real bad way. One reason they backed down in Cuba is that while we had little chance of surviving they had zero chance, it was several times to one in devices as well as the ability to deliver them. You have to wonder how close we came to nuking Beijing when they invaded in Korea. At the time the USSR probably could not have hit the USA all that hard. Big Mac might have easily said, "YOU WANT SOME?"

In the end we had to make thousands. They must be dispersed. Otherwise you are a sitting duck.

Quote: Nareed

I think nukes are too horrible for rational people to contemplate using.

Early 70's come conservatives thought we should nuke North Viet Nam.
I remember the talk back them. Bomb them into the stone age.
When you are fighting a small country, and they are kicking your ass, Generals will be tempted.
Look at all the chemicals we poured on the jungle for defoilage.
The carpet bombing. The USA tried everything short of nuking. You know it was discussed. I'm sure some in the high command fought for it, we were losing.

I've watched several docs, both about the Pacific theatre, as well as the whole bomb race.

No part of me thinks the Japs would have ever surrendered. The Japs surrendering would be like the French not surrendering. It just doesn't happen. And the propaganda at the time was strong indeed. When we were island hopping, the native population were killing themselves by the thousands. Many jumped, hand in hand, mother, father, kids, right off cliffs. They were certain the Americans were savages that would rip them to shreds.

I can't answer the strategic elements involving Russia and all that stuff. I don't have a mind for it. But the number of Japs that died in the bomb would have died anyways. One at a time or all at once, it would've happened. And maybe this way was better. Perhaps the reason there hasn't been one used since is because we saw how horrendous it is. If Hiro and Naga weren't there as an example, who knows what the first example would have been.

Quote: Face

No part of me thinks the Japs would have ever surrendered..

It's not a part of their culture. Rather die
than surrender. It was the threat of the
entire culture dying that made them give
up. They may be stubborn, but not stupid.

" Early 70's come conservatives thought we should nuke North Viet Nam.
I remember the talk back them. Bomb them into the stone age. "

In the early 70's I worked in an underground hardened ATT site in Dranesville Va. One of the Generals who used to take tours there with Pentagon groups was always saying Nuke EM when referring to Vietnam.

As for bombing people back to the stone age, that's the problem the Russians and USA both had with Afghanistan. The enemy was already living in caves.

Never forget the domino theory. If Saigon falls, Trenton NJ will be next. Of course with just a few more thousand troops, the Generals could have won in Vietman. Or so they said.

But the Vietnam war was no all bad. Many a dufus got laid for the first time at peace rallies.

There will come soft rains.

“The house was an altar with ten thousand attendants, big, small, servicing, attending, in choirs. But the gods had gone away, and the ritual of the religion continued senselessly, uselessly.”

Quote: TheCesspit

The Kyujo Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

The emperor and his council had effectively accepted the Potsdam declaration (Hirohito had suggested that Japan accept it before the A-bombs were dropped), but some of the others officers outside the top echelon did not accept this decision.

Thanks for finding that. If I get a bee up my butt I might try to insert a bit into the wikipedia page on the movie, this is clearly an omission. A way to leave something for posterity.

I am late in this conversation and haven't read the whole thread but I have gone through a conversion on this topic. I used to think it was my patriotic duty to not question the dropping of the bombs on Japan. I just believed like everyone says that Japan would not have surrendered and the war would have been prolonged and many more hardships and deaths would have occurred. However, some time ago I just thought more about the decision to drop nuclear bombs on two cities full of civilians, women, and children and I cannot square that with the official line. My opinion now is that nuclear weapons should never be used, especially to threaten and scare populations into doing anything. They are weapons of terror and grave destruction.

Quote: Nareed

There's been much revisionism over the years, mostly to the effect Japan was about to surrender anyway. .

the Japanese army was intact and one army officer even sent his troops to disarm the Emperor's guards and prevent a surrender message from being played.
Much of the fight to the last man recent history had been the result of wartime propaganda aimed at the military and civilians.
Other projects had madeit a war of attrition