Is it fair to use knowledge we have today to question tough decisions made 50 years ago on the issue of using atomic bomb in Japan?

Answer 1

No, it isn't fair to "Monday-morning quarterback" this decision, nor is it even usually done with much historical accuracy involved in the criticism!

The atomic bombing decision was made in view of the situation known and experienced during the time of the decision-making. The primary factor was obviously the casualty estimates that were projected for a conventional troop invasion landing on mainland Japan (over a million U.S. casualties estimated). There were then many other factors taken into account, including the just-recent (in 1945) record of fanatically suicidal defences of Japanese islands.

This same type of second-guessing is, unfortunately, due to today's political correctness, applied to the removal of ethnic Japanese from the U.S. west coast district by General DeWitt, after FDR's executive order of February 1942.

Another view

Yes it is fair and correct to do so. We learn by our mistakes and actions. We should always question our actions, especially when they may have such dreadful consequences.

Third View: Of course this question & answer is a personal opinion. However, an opinion should be based in factual information & not on emotional sentiment. I agree with most of the previous two opinions, in that it is fair to judge past decisions based on what we know now, however the first person said it correctly: "The atomic bombing decision was made in view of the situation known and experienced during the time of the decision-making. The primary factor was obviously the casualty estimates that were projected for a conventional troop invasion landing on mainland Japan (over a million U.S. casualties estimated). There were then many other factors taken into account, including the just-recent (in 1945) record of fanatically suicidal defences of Japanese islands. This same type of second-guessing is, unfortunately, due to today's political correctness..." The decision to use two atomic bombs against Japan was correct & necessary to convince Emperor Hirohito to direct the Japanese (primarily military ) leaders to accept the Unconditional Surrender terms of the Allies. Nothing we have learned since 1945 has altered the truth of the situation as it was believed by American leaders in 1945, as it relates to the decision to use the A-Bombs. Actually as the more we learn, the greater is the evidence that it was a correct decision.

Additionally, the use of the atomic bombs in 1945 has had a lasting positive influence on the US ability to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent during the Cold War, in that the US has actually used them in the past and is likely to use them in the future if sufficiently threatened. This 'threat' has prevented the Soviet Union from achieving many of its territorial ambitions during the Cold War. Case in point: Austrian independence from the Soviet grasp. Few remember that Austria was divided into post-WW2 occupation zones, just as Germany was. Vienna (Wien) was divided like Berlin was, and the rest of Austria was divided like Germany. The Austrians skillfully convinced the Soviets to allow a public referendum on the Soviet presence in Austria. The Austrians led the Soviets into thinking that the Austrians would overwhelmingly support the continued presence of the Soviets. The Soviets thought this would be great public relations/Propaganda victory for them. When the referendum took place and the Austrians voted overwhelmingly to reject the Soviet occupation, then the Soviets refused to leave. Enter President Truman: He dispatched long-range bombers to Europe & quietly notified the Soviets that he (the US) was prepared to use nuclear bombs against the Soviets if they did not honor the Austrian vote & depart Austria. Soon the Soviets departed, and all Austrians were free. Most likely, Austrian neutrality (not joining NATO) was the concession made by Truman to allow the Soviets to swallow this bitter pill. If the US had not previously used the A-Bomb against Japan, then how credible would have been Truman's threat? Fortunately, we will not know for sure if it was a bluff, and neither will our enemies.