If America didn't drop the atom bomb....

[micfranklin]

How do you think that would have affected the end of WWII? Better? Worse? Just the same?

Personally I think without the A-bomb, we'd have had a lot more soldiers dead because of the Japanese.

[Nitrus]

I agree, it would have taken a lot more fighting and a lot more loss of life. I mean, it took TWO atom bombs before the CONSIDERED surrendering. Having said that, it did create the nuclear age, which is undoubtedly going to be the fuel for the next war.

[micfranklin]

It is possible that the Japanese could've also planned another invasion of their own or even made another Pearl Harbor-esque attack.

[Buck Laser]

It is possible that the Japanese could've also planned another invasion of their own or even made another Pearl Harbor-esque attack.


Mic, I don't think you paid enough attention in your history classes. Japan was essentially defeated by the summer of 1945. They didn't have the resources for a surprise attack anywhere then. And as a nation utterly dependent on importing resources, especially oil, they didn't the capacity to launch any kind of serious attack.

One of the options that was considered in 1945 was to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb on an unoccupied island so the Japanese could see it. President Truman chose instead to use it directly against Japan. Some have argued that the USSR's entry into the war against Japan hastened the decision to drop the bombs, because the US didn't want a hassle with the Soviets over dividing up the occupied territory. Problems and territory disputes had already manifested themselves in Europe as the West and the USSR squabbled over territory there.

I'm inclined to believe that territory played a more important part in the decision to drop the bomb than worry about additional casualties--although I think both issues were important.

[BoogyMan]

I don't know how Buck has determined your level of study Mic and I would never be so arrogant as to make such commentary based on you asking a simple question.

Below is my take on the situation:

A ground invasion of Kyushu and Honshu would have been quite possibly the bloodiest series of battles of the war.Â*Â*I will admit that Uncle Joe played a huge factor in the decision to go ahead with the drop, but war-weariness and the broadly evidenced bloodlust of the Japanese military made a quick end to the war highly desireable.

[Buck Laser]

I don't know how Buck has determined your level of study Mic and I would never be so arrogant as to make such commentary based on you asking a simple question.


Damn, I hate to have to explain myself! I said what I said about Mic's historical understanding because anyone who's looked at WW2 in depth would realize that Japan lacked the resources to mount another surprise attack, or an attack of just about any kind. I apologize for coming across as arrogant or abrupt, but that's how I tend to react when people aren't as aware of history as I think they should be.

But I should know better with younger people. My children are both in their 40s, and despite an avid interest in history, they tend to be fuzzy on the chronology of WW2. I was ten years old when it ended, and my classmates and I kept up as avidly with the news as our parents did. I shouldn't have assumed that Mic would know about the war the way a contemporary of mine would.

[Elrathin]

A bigger question is, does the ends justify the means?

[Cobra]

Yep, we didn't want the soviets to get Japan is how I learned. Wherever the red army went it stayed. It also saved American lives since an invasion would have been costly considering the Japanese attitudes on surrendering.

[micfranklin]

It is possible that the Japanese could've also planned another invasion of their own or even made another Pearl Harbor-esque attack.


Mic, I don't think you paid enough attention in your history classes.Â*Â*Japan was essentially defeated by the summer of 1945.Â*Â*They didn't have the resources for a surprise attack anywhere then.Â*Â*And as a nation utterly dependent on importing resources, especially oil, they didn't the capacity to launch any kind of serious attack.

One of the options that was considered in 1945 was to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb on an unoccupied island so the Japanese could see it.Â*Â*President Truman chose instead to use it directly against Japan.Â*Â*Some have argued that the USSR'sÂ*Â*entry into the war against Japan hastened the decision to drop the bombs, because the US didn't want a hassle with the Soviets over dividing up the occupied territory.Â*Â*Problems and territory disputes had already manifested themselves in Europe as the West and the USSR squabbled over territory there.

I'm inclined to believe that territory played a more important part in the decision to drop the bomb than worry about additional casualties--although I think both issues were important.


I only said it was possible, not that it would actually happen.

[Elrathin]

Yep, we didn't want the soviets to get Japan is how I learned. Wherever the red army went it stayed. It also saved American lives since an invasion would have been costly considering the Japanese attitudes on surrendering.


So if Hitler was allowed to kill off the Jews and that somehow made peace in the middle east if Israel didn't exists, would you have said Hitler was a hero then since there was peace in the middle east because of his actions?

In other words if world peace was the result of Hitler Killing off millions of people, would you call Hitler a hero for it?

[Buck Laser]

It is possible that the Japanese could've also planned another invasion of their own or even made another Pearl Harbor-esque attack.


Mic, I don't think you paid enough attention in your history classes. Japan was essentially defeated by the summer of 1945. They didn't have the resources for a surprise attack anywhere then. And as a nation utterly dependent on importing resources, especially oil, they didn't the capacity to launch any kind of serious attack.

One of the options that was considered in 1945 was to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb on an unoccupied island so the Japanese could see it. President Truman chose instead to use it directly against Japan. Some have argued that the USSR's entry into the war against Japan hastened the decision to drop the bombs, because the US didn't want a hassle with the Soviets over dividing up the occupied territory. Problems and territory disputes had already manifested themselves in Europe as the West and the USSR squabbled over territory there.

I'm inclined to believe that territory played a more important part in the decision to drop the bomb than worry about additional casualties--although I think both issues were important.


I only said it was possible, not that it would actually happen.


I don't think it was even possible, given the state of the Japanese military forces at the time. A bloody defense of the homeland would have been possible, and it may be correct that fewer total lives were lost in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than would have occurred had US troops actually invaded the home islands. But we will never know the answer to that.

[firefox]

The easy solution would have been to just blockade the home islands. They were already on the way out militarily. Another major issue in WWII was the doctrine of "unconditional surrender". This encouraged all sides to fight to the bitter end out of despairation. Had this not been a factor, I think the war would have ended a year or two earlier and/or been far less brutal.

[Buck Laser]

The easy solution would have been to just blockade the home islands. They were already on the way out militarily. Another major issue in WWII was the doctrine of "unconditional surrender". This encouraged all sides to fight to the bitter end out of despairation. Had this not been a factor, I think the war would have ended a year or two earlier and/or been far less brutal.

That's an interesting idea. But I wonder how effective a blockade could have been. My mental picture of the geography of Japan suggests that there are many islands in the sea between Japan and China, and a blockade might not have been successful.

But I'd agree that the Allies' demand for unconditional surrender did prolong the war, especially in Japan, where the national honor was so central to the nation's identity. But in fact, a very important condition WAS allowed in Japan: they got to keep the Emperor. It seems to me that General MacArthur was the great proponent of that step, and architect of the fairly rapid reconstruction in Japan. That makes the end of his career strange and tragic as he advocated the use of nuclear weapons against N. Korea or Red China, and set himself against President Truman. I remember those years vividly, as I was in high school at the time, and we followed the debate closely in social science and history classes.

[Oedipus Rex]

Does it really matter if we dropped one, two, or hundreds of nuclear weapons on Japan? Yes, I know we only had three to begin with and one of those was used in a test leaving two for Japan. My point is this, Japan went to war against us and we should determine if and when enough is enough. In the end it wasn't Japan's call.

[Buck Laser]

Does it really matter if we dropped one, two, or hundreds of nuclear weapons on Japan? Yes, I know we only had three to begin with and one of those was used in a test leaving two for Japan. My point is this, Japan went to war against us and we should determine if and when enough is enough. In the end it wasn't Japan's call.


Yes it matters. In the sixty-plus years that nuclear weapons have existed, the United States of America remains the only nation in the world ever to have used a nuclear weapon in war. I'm glad we ended the war, but I wish President Truman hadn't decided to use the bomb. I think we bear a heavy share of the guilt for the existence of nuclear weapons in the world. But to be fair, we can take some credit for the fact that no other nuclear weapon has been used in warfare.

Placing responsiblility on Japan for our use of the weapon is a nasty little rhetorical device, nothing more.

[Oedipus Rex]

Does it really matter if we dropped one, two, or hundreds of nuclear weapons on Japan? Yes, I know we only had three to begin with and one of those was used in a test leaving two for Japan. My point is this, Japan went to war against us and we should determine if and when enough is enough. In the end it wasn't Japan's call.


Yes it matters. In the sixty-plus years that nuclear weapons have existed, the United States of America remains the only nation in the world ever to have used a nuclear weapon in war. I'm glad we ended the war, but I wish President Truman hadn't decided to use the bomb. I think we bear a heavy share of the guilt for the existence of nuclear weapons in the world. But to be fair, we can take some credit for the fact that no other nuclear weapon has been used in warfare.

Placing responsiblility on Japan for our use of the weapon is a nasty little rhetorical device, nothing more.


In war, nasty things happen. I think nuclear weapons are always an option to those who possess them. Japan now understands that reality. I'd rather have my enemies die before our own boys any day.