[codewench]

Obviously looking at it from today's perspective it's (hopefully) unthinkable, but there is a lot written from contemporary sources which make a fairly persuasive argument.

The main concerns were that the Japanese government was simply not in a place where it could surrender, which meant a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland was seen as mandatory. Given the prior experiences of how dedicated Japanese defenders could be (eg Mount Suribachi), it was assumed that any actual attempt to take the Japanese mainland would result in untold deaths, to the point where the US has enough Purple Heart medals created (in anticipation of the casualties am invasion would involve) that they didn't have to restart production until 2008. As horrifying as it is, the first atomic bomb was considered the lesser evil. That said, Nagasaki is much much harder to defend.

Unrelated, but I recommend everyone who can to visit Hiroshima and visit the museums there. Hopefully it will instill in everyone a fervent desire to never again see such horrific things enacted again.

[fortran77]

> Unrelated, but I recommend everyone who can to visit Hiroshima and visit the museums there. Hopefully it will instill in everyone a fervent desire to never again see such horrific things enacted again.

The Nagasaki muesum is very good, too. And it's a nicer town to visit today. (We were just there last month.)

[throw0101d]

> That said, Nagasaki is much much harder to defend.

The first bomb was dropped August 6.

The Japanese War Cabinet met on August 9 to discuss the situation, and concluded that the US didn't have the resources for more, so they concluded to not surrender. Even after the first bomb was dropped.

In the middle of the meeting they learned of the second bomb which was dropped that morning.

After the second bomb the War Cabinet was split 3-3. They called in the full cabinet and that was split as well.

Two bombs weren't enough to decisively convince them to surrender, and so the Emperor had to be called in to break the deadlock.

And yet we are to believe that even though two bombs were barely enough to force a surrender, zero bombs would have sufficed?

[_hao]

Japan's decision to surrender was most likely due to the fact that the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria with 1.5 million men.[1] Yes, the atomic bombings were horrible, but the fire bombing of Tokyo wasn't much better. The Japanese regime didn't care that much. When the Soviets declared war that was the breaking point and their situation became hopeless. This point is very often overlooked by US based media and historians (I guess for obvious reasons), but the fact of the matter is that we don't know if only the two bombs would've been enough to make Japan capitulate.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

[zdw]

And even then there was still an attempted coup to try to stop the surrender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

[cataphract]

So killing civilians en masse is fine, as long it forces the enemy to surrender with (probably) fewer casualties? Why even have laws of war then, if we adjust adjudicate these questions with a utilitarian calculus?

[WalterBright]

Another factor in the surrender was the Japanese had intelligence that a third bomb was to be dropped on Tokyo. (That intelligence later turned out to be false.)

One bomb could have been all that America had. Two bombs meant more were coming.

[littlestymaar]

You're just missing an entire half of the story here: which is the USSR attacking on the 9th of August!

Of course if you omit the second most important factor then things start becoming obvious, but in reality the answer to this question is far from obvious (in neither direction, needless to say, the tankies who claim with certainty that the bombing was not needed are equally wrong)

[nsonha]

> The Japanese War Cabinet met on August 9 to discuss the situation, and concluded that the US didn't have the resources for more

does that sound believable to you? The Japanese somehow had intel on a secret new weapon? And confident about it to the point they are willing to bet their entire country on it, in a war that's already ending?

Or does that sound like manufactured consent?

[kps]

> the US didn't have the resources for more

They were correct that the US didn't have the resources for a second uranium bomb.

[hnbad]

The unstated assumption in this is that it was important for the US to be the one to defeat Japan. It was not just about defeating Japan, it was also about the Soviet Union not defeating it first.

The US had been continously fire bombing Japan at the point the atomic bombs dropped. In the grand scheme of things the bombs were just very large blips in waves upon waves of destruction.

Japan would have been defeated without a US ground invasion and without the atomic bombs. But it would have been defeated by the Soviet Union, not the US.

There were three possible outcomes:

* an unconditional surrender to the Soviet Union, possibly following the death or arrest of the Emperor

* a conditional surrender to the US granting immunity to the Emperor

* an unconditional last-ditch surrender to the US to prevent a Soviet advance and further loss of territory

The atomic bombs played a very small part in this. As has been stated repeatedly in attempts to justify their use: the Japanese were "dedicated" to defend the mainland and the Emperor to the point of performing suicide attacks. The deaths from the atomic bombings meant very little relative to the civilian lives that had already been lost to the fire bombings before, after and throughout. But in consequence this meant that the integrity of the mainland territory and the life of the Emperor meant a lot - and this was threatened by the prospect of an invasion, not further atomic bombings.

The sad irony is that the demand of the surrender being unconditional was ultimately more about narrative-building and optics as the US effectively gave Japan what it wanted by leaving the Emperor untouched and not making any territorial changes. It's clear to see why the US demanded it but the outcome effectively met most of the terms a conditional surrender would have set prior to the atomic bombings.

In consequence the atomic bombs provided very little strategic benefits and only meant the US would have to go on with those attacks on its conscience - not that it seemed to weigh too heavily.

[will5421]

Killing civilians to save soldiers

[startupsfail]

It is a bit surprising that so much damage was inflicted on civilians with firebombing and all for the sake of what looks like vindictiveness. Surely after the victory it would have been possible to write the books, stating it was « unconditional surrender » regardless of what kind of surrender it actually was (it is victors who tend to be able to write history books as they see fit.)

[mc32]

Don't worry, the Japanese are pretty good at writing their own history too.

[mmustapic]

> The main concerns were that the Japanese government was simply not in a place where it could surrender

That’s the horrifying thing, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians so your enemy surrenders.

[mrguyorama]

The Japanese populace, whether they wanted to or not, was fully prepared and planning to defend the home islands with their lives as gruesomely as possible.

If America had not dropped the bombs and the Soviets ended up finishing off Japan like so many seem to think they would, the Soviets at the end of the war were NOT known for being gentle in their dominance.

There was no ending to Japan in WWII that did not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

[littlestymaar]

Strategic bombing were attempted multiple time during the war (first by the Germans on UK, and the UK/US on Germany then Japan) without success (and in most cases it actually strengthened the resolve)

[chasd00]

> That’s the horrifying thing, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians so your enemy surrenders.

yeah, war sucks. Especially a world wide war, it's not a fun time.

"there is nothing good in war except its ending" - Lincoln