Atomic Bombs

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.

It could be made of many different things, including plastics, depending on its intended usage.

The two dropped on japan in WW2 each used a casing made of an aluminum alloy called Duralumin.

the atomic cloud over hiroshima went up to 70,000 ft. in a half hour. the cloud could be seen from 150 to 200 miles away. it broke windows 15 miles from ground zero.

The bomb that hit Hiroshima was called "Little Boy" and it was an uranium bomb. It killed 70,000 people immediately or soon after and injured 70,000 more. The blast was so hot that it burned people's clothes off or had the pattern or color of their clothes "tattooed" on them...PERMANENTLY!

Yes, but they had made almost no progress:

1. Germany, yes initially but atomic bomb work was stopped after Heisenberg made an arithmetic error in the critical mass calculation suggesting that the atomic bomb would be too heavy for any practical bomber of the time to carry, so the project was scaled back to only development of a prototype heavy water reactor fueled with natural uranium
2. Japan, yes but unavailability of quality high power high voltage vacuum tubes needed for cyclotrons had hindered measurement of properties of uranium
3. Italy, no program had ever began

Date of first bombing: August 6, 1945

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.
By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."
By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.
On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."
The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."
On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."
Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."
Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."
In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: "Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses." (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)
America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.
The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.
On August 6, 1945, the world dramatically entered the atomic age: without either warning or precedent, an American plane dropped a single nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion utterly destroyed more than four square miles of the city center. About 90,000 people were killed immediately; another 40,000 were injured, many of whom died in protracted agony from radiation sickness. Three days later, a second atomic strike on the city of Nagasaki killed some 37,000 people and injured another 43,000. Together the two bombs eventually killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians.

Source: Weber, Mark "Was Hiroshima Necessary? Why the Atomic Bombings could have been avoided" The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 4-11.

Here are explanations:

• To put an immediate end to the war
• The USA was facing the prospect of invading Japan to subdue it. The last few battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. Japan had no regard for its own citizens' lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. It was estimated that casualties would be 1 million Americans and half a million British in the first invasion alone. Some cynics say we used it to scare Stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 27 July 1945 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and Japanese lives.

Discussions:

The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of the Axis. In the Pacific Theater, the Allies, led by the United States, rolled up the Japanese expansion island by island. When Guam was taken, the Allies had a base from which stage an invasion. The estimates of American casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan was in excess of 1 million Americans. Possibly in excess of 2 million Americans. The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings. While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.

To force Japan to surrender without further fighting. Japan surrendered very quickly thus saving the lives of over 100,000 American soldiers and perhaps as many as 1,000,000 Japanese who would have died if we had invaded Japan.

The Allies utilized atomic weapons to bring Japan to her knees. As an American, how hard would you fight an enemy if they were invading our nation? I mean literally on the soil of our 50 states? Then imagine how hard EVERY Japanese citizen, man, woman AND child, would be trying to kill OUR men, as we invade their nation.

Tensions were starting to build up in Europe between Soviet Union and its western allies. Since USSR had an overwhelming numerical superiority there, a show of force was needed to convince Stalin to "behave". Besides, the Russians were preparing for an invasion of Japan. I think these considerations were at least as valid back then as saving American lives.

According to some sources, Japan had a military force of over 9 million soldiers. Through battles like Midway, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, and other "island-hopping" battles, 1.5 million soldiers either were killed or wounded enough so they couldn't fight. That meant that if Operation Olympic (the invasion of the main island of Japan) were to occur we would have to fight every soldier we had defeated before four times over!

Even if we hadn't of dropped the atomic bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still have been targets for attack. This is because Hiroshima was a large industrial city that contained the 2nd Japanese Army Headquarters, which was in charge of all the defense systems in Southern Japan; Hiroshima also had communication centers for armies, storage points, and troop assemblies. Small industrial plants were also in the outskirts of the city. As for Nagasaki, it was the largest fully operational sea port in Southern Japan, which produced ships, equipment, and relief supplies. There is much other information that can be explained about the reality of dropping the bomb on Japan and this was one 'chunk' of information.

I agree with the guys who were talking about conserving American army resources and manpower. At Iwo Jima there were nearly 30,000 marines KIA. The Japanese lost nearly all of their army there. Imagine that in a place with cities, etc and bigger armies in a homeland .Even if you guys won, the Japanese would never forgive you. More deaths would have been caused than the bombs, and in more cities.

The fact that a lot of Japanese fought to the death because they were never given a chance to surrender, and the fact that after Pearl harbor 13% of Americans said in a poll (13% of voting Americans, that is) that the only acceptable outcome of the war to them was the death of every Japanese man woman and child. Then there are slogans like, "kill Japs, kill Japs and kill more Japs" and somebody said how the main language in Hell by the end would be Japanese.

The Yanks were furious for Pearl Harbor and revenge is the most dangerous reason for fighting for both sides. The Japanese are brave people who see honor in death if the death is good (not in all death, though. Any fool can die in battle. True courage is living when it is right to live and dying when it is right to die). So, IMO, the A-bomb was used to reduce the expected casualty rate and loss of resources (tanks, weapons, etc all cost the taxpayers and government a lot of money) and I'm guessing it probably did for both sides.

World War two ended on August 10, 1945 only four after the Little Boy uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and one day after the Fat Man plutonium bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

Combined, approximately 128,000 died just due to the massive concussion and explosions caused by the bombs, and about 120,000 suffered from radiation sickness and cancer, many of whom died afterwards. The question is, was it really necessary to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to get them to surrender?

My answer is yes, because of several factors. One is the culture of the Japanese at the time. For centuries the Japanese had a warrior class called the samurai. The samurai followed Bushido, or the way of the warrior, which was an honor code that preaches that honor, duty, and loyalty to the emperor and local warlord are the absolute virtues that can be achieved.

As a result, a loss of honor would mean that the dishonored samurai would be expected to commit Seppuku, or ritualistic suicide, which involves a samurai taking his sword, stabbing himself with it, and cutting out his own liver. The wound was very painful and could take quite a while to die from, anywhere from a few minutes to a week.

The most common way in which a samurai could be dishonored would be by being defeated in battle. However, fighting to the last man and arrow (or in this case, round of ammo) and holding ones position till the death was considered a great honor.

Does this sound like a nation that is willing to give up? By the last years of the war, everyone, men and women, over the age of thirteen was a part of a sort of National Guard, and were under the same rules as the rest of the military, which was in turn fighting under a modified code of Bushido which dictated that they never surrender and leave behind the wounded.

Another aspect of Japan's culture was that of a group mentality. About ninety-nine percent of the Japanese people were, at the time of World War 2, direct decedents from the original nomadic Mongolian tribes that crossed over into Japan from the Korean Peninsula. They inhabited a land of which only twenty percent was flat enough to farm. Entire towns had to work together to maintain tiny rice paddies carved into hillsides that were irrigated by a community network.

Disagreement among the common people against their ruler or with each other was unthinkable and impractical. On the whole, as long as the military oligarchy wanted the war to continue, the majority of the people would be willing to follow through.

The Nuclear Bombs being dropped finally got the military oligarchy to be willing to give up the fighting, and that is what brought them to the peace table, under the condition that the emperor remain in power. Even after the bombs were dropped, the Emperor's speech never mentioned surrender; just that it was in the best interest of Japan to cease fighting. Had America invaded, the Japanese would have kept on fighting unless given the order to stop. Not only would many American lives have been lost cleaning out all of the fighting forces, everyone in Japan over thirteen was a part of that fighting force. The Japanese people would have been decimated to a point of no return.

Even after having two nuclear weapons dropped on them, many of the Japanese military were unwilling to surrender, regardless of the Emperors wishes. In fact the night the Emperor was preparing to surrender a military coup was staged.

It was only the barest of coincidences that prevented this coup from stopping the surrender. Specifically the American military had started giving up that Japan would surrender at all and decided to bomb the last stores of heating oil in the country (with winter approaching).

The flight flew over Tokyo and the city was blacked out, which stymied the coup. Even after the surrender, many Japanese military leaders chose to kill themselves rather than surrender. As the war ended the Japanese were preparing a massive propaganda campaign to rally civilians to resist the expected invasion.

It's uplifting theme "one hundred million will die in defense of Emperor and Nation." A little cultural note: Ten thousand is the largest number that can be represented by a single character. It is commonly used to represent an indefinitely large number. One hundred million is ten thousand squared, in other words, all will die.

To the last man, woman, and child. Would it have succeeded? Not totally. Japan would not have ceased to exist, not everyone would have had the stomach to sacrifice themselves. But many, many would have. Many did in Okinawa. On top of that, the Japanese military showed it's willingness to make sure civilians had their honor preserved (by killing them) both in Saipan and Okinawa.

It is not the least bit unlikely that they would have done the same--more likely more!--on the Japanese home islands. On top of that the naval embargo and the devastation of the Japanese infrastructure would have condemned millions to death by starvation and exposure during the winter.

President Harry S. Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for one reason: not to end the war with Japan, but to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war, deny him a share of the peace that we were going to impose on Japan. History shows there was probably not one single general officer in that war who approved of it, and they all went public very quickly to denounce their Commander-in-Chief.

When debating the topic of why the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, one must first consider the prelude to the decision. Estimates of U.S. casualties to invade the Japanese home islands were expected to be high; this estimate was based on the stiff Japanese resistance encountered on Okinawa. Naturally the primary motivation to drop the weapons was to end the war as quickly as possible.

Some evidence suggests that the Japanese were seeking to end the war and other evidence suggests that a significant faction in Japan sought to continue the war. While tensions with the Soviet Union would mount in the coming years, the general euphoria of defeating Germany still had not worn off and the Soviet Union still hadn't invaded Manchuria, so clearly the decision to drop the bomb wasn't primarily motivated by a desire to intimidate the Soviets or to prevent the Soviets from seizing ground in China/Korea.

In the end, the only way to judge Truman's decision is to look at the information Truman was presented with. There is no clear evidence to show that Truman knew or had any reason to believe the Japanese were going to surrender, he had witnessed a bloody defense of the home islands and was shown high casualty estimates to invade the Japanese home islands.

However, the second atomic weapon was dropped a short time after Hiroshima, after the Soviets had invaded Manchuria, at a point in time when Japan was in general turmoil, its premier field army (the Kwantung Army was in full retreat) and at a time when Japan's fascist regime was in its death throes.

The decision to drop the second bomb MAY have been premature. However, all things considered, please remember that WW2 was a brutal war, it was a long war, it was a war in which armies of all sides freely bombed civilian populations. Without condoning the killing of civilians, please remember that the cities bombed were NOT Tokyo or Osaka; the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows at least SOME deference for human life within the larger context of the brutality of WW2.

The answer is not that simple but as Americans we can say that it was because they bombed Pearl Harbor, or that we were doing a favor to everyone because an invasion on the mainland would have cost many people their lives, but that is more reasoning than answers.

If we look at all the facts we could see that America was bombing the Japanese cities with the same types of bombs that the American and British air-forces used against the Germans. Also we see that the Japanese were losing the war greater than thought, there was an American blockade around the island stopping all food and oil from coming into the country, and as we all know humans can not live without food and the Japanese tanks, aircraft's and ships need oil to run so that would have help reduce the resistance from the Japanese. Now I am not saying that I am upset with dropping the bomb because part of me is and part of me isn't.

Because Japan would not put an end to the war. They refused to surrender because they still believed that they could force better terms of surrender if they held out longer. They believed that they could kill over a million U.S. troops if we attempted to invade the Japanese mainland. Estimates varied greatly depending on who ran the numbers.

There was no question that Japan could not be allowed to maintain their military so that they could rebuild just to go after the Pacific again. The Allies had just seen a similar mistake that resulted in the German invasion of Europe and the Allies vowed to not let that happen again. Unconditional surrender was demanded and Japan would not surrender, even after their cities burned and hundreds of thousands died from conventional bombing. Nuclear devices had just been created that were capable of causing unimaginable damage to life and property. Imagine what would have happened back home if the citizens found out that we had a device that could have stopped the war and the President didn't use it and instead almost a million troops were killed in an invasion attempt. Imagine if one of the dead had been YOUR relative, would you be very tolerant that the President didn't use the new weapon? It was an impossible decision.