Was truman right to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?

The fire bombing of Dresden 13 and 15 February 1945, was only 12 weeks before Victory in Europe Day. More than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices resulted in a firestorm which destroyed over 1,600 acres of the city center. An estimated 25,000 people were killed. Dresden—sometimes referred to as "Florence on the Elbe" (Elbflorenz)—was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.

Over 60 million people were killed in WWII. Japanese deaths alone were 2.5 to 3.2 million.

Obviously if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been a one time decision accomplished with conventional bombing the morality of the decision would be a minor topic, just as the firebombing of Dresden is a relatively minor topic in the history of WWII. Of course if it were done with conventional bombs it might not have even brought about an unconditional surrender.

Quote: buzzardknot

“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.”

In other words, the religious rituals continued as always :)

Quote: terapined

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

Which goes to show people don't like to learn from history.

During the Korean war, things were going rather well for the US until the Chinese got involved. Some diplomatic groundwork with Mao would have saved the war, but Nixon wouldn't go to China for some years.

During WWII, the Luftwaffe demonstrated the limited value of strategic bombing. During that same war, Bomber Command and the US Army Air Corps demonstrated it again.

How does this apply to Vietnam? 1) Don't escalate the war to the point other countries get involved. 2) Strategic bombing has never and will never win a war.

Nuking North Vietnam would have produced a reaction from the Soviets. What that would have been is hard to tell, but nuking the South or perhaps even another US ally, say South Korea or Israel, wouldn't have been out of the question.

More bombing of Vietnam wouldn't ever win the war.

Quote: Face

If Hiro and Naga weren't there as an example, who knows what the first example would have been.

Had the war in Europe lasted a few months longer, the first target would have been in Germany. Possibly also a city not yet bombed to hell, but Berlin wouldn't have been out of the question.

The second one might have been dropped over Japan. You wanted both powers to surrender.

Quote: Nareed

Had the war in Europe lasted a few months longer, the first target would have been in Germany. Possibly also a city not yet bombed to hell, but Berlin wouldn't have been out of the question.

The second one might have been dropped over Japan. You wanted both powers to surrender.

That would have required Russia coming to a standstill. That was very possible, if the Germans had conserved strength at Stalingrad, Kursk and Demyansk. But time and again, the German's threw limited resources into a black hole of attrition.

Quote: Nareed

How does this apply to Vietnam? 1) Don't escalate the war to the point other countries get involved. 2) Strategic bombing has never and will never win a war.

Maybe not, but it's been a vital aspect of several wars. The US and UK's strategic bombing of Germany did several things. It slowed production of war machines. It brought resources away from the front and into the Fatherland. It brought the war home. It strained the supply lines. These all mattered in the long run.

And not least, Bomber Harris's early bombing of Germany during the London Blitz so pissed of Hitler he insisted the Luftwaffe bomb civilian targets, and not the RAF airfields... just as the RAF was stretched to breaking point defending itself. But we could list Hitler's military screw ups all day. It's scary to think what would have happened if he'd be a bit more competent.

Quote: pacomartin

The fire bombing of Dresden 13 and 15 February 1945, was only 12 weeks before Victory in Europe Day. More than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices resulted in a firestorm which destroyed over 1,600 acres of the city center. An estimated 25,000 people were killed. Dresden—sometimes referred to as "Florence on the Elbe" (Elbflorenz)—was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.

My Great Uncle bombed Dresden. He was told, and he told me, that there was a huge concentration of troops there ready to head out to the front, so it was essential they break the rail head and communications there.

He also bombed Peenemünde, twice. Said he was only ever scared once flying missions, and that was when he had to go back the day after the first attack, as they all knew the air defences would be ready for them this time.