# Hiroshima & Nagasaki **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2007, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603 "2007-08-06T08:56:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/21 "2007-08-06T14:04:11Z")
[QUOTE=pool] We dropped two bombs and actually had plans to drop more atomic bombs [/QUOTE] We may have had plans, but we didn’t have any more nukes. IIRC, it wasn’t until November 1945 that any more bombs were available after the first three (Trinity, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) were used up. I suppose the next batch might have been finished a bit faster if the war had kept going on, but it still would have been a matter of a couple months. Basically, dropping two in quick succession was in part a bluff to make it look like we had more where those came from. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/22 "2007-08-06T14:08:40Z")
[QUOTE=cckerberos] Parts of the Japanese government were putting out peace feelers. The military did not back them, however, so they were meaningless. [/QUOTE] They were nowhere near the terms demanded by the allies in any case. It was basicly an attempt to get a ‘half-time’ so they could recover and resume their wars at their leisure. In other words, not in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/23 "2007-08-06T14:26:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **Steve MB** > We may have had plans, but we didn’t have any more nukes. IIRC, it wasn’t until November 1945 that any more bombs were available after the first three (Trinity, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) were used up. I suppose the next batch might have been finished a bit faster if the war had kept going on, but it still would have been a matter of a couple months. > > Basically, dropping two in quick succession was in part a bluff to make it look like we had more where those came from. From Wiki: > [@](#): > > The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[50] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, in which he wrote that “the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.” On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, “It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.”[50] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. So it sounds like they certainly thought they were capable of making more atomic bombs right away, whether they actually were, I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/24 "2007-08-06T14:31:31Z")
Eisenhower thought it was unneeded: > [@](#): > > “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…” As did McArthur: > [@](#): > > Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” As did former President Hoover: > [@](#): > > “I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you’ll get a peace in Japan - you’ll have both wars over.” As did Admiral Leahy > [@](#): > > "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. As did Asst Secy of War John McCloy: > [@](#): > > “I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.” Why are the views of all these guys who were so close to the situation (well, OK, Hoover wasn’t) discounted by modern revisionists? ---
**Author:** ![jk1245](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/49beb7/32.png) [@jk1245](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jk1245)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/25 "2007-08-06T14:38:45Z")
As kind of an aside, I’ve long thought that the invasion of Japan probably wasn’t necessary. Wouldn’t the most logical plan (absent nukes) have been to encircle the island with a blockade and starve it out? Japan is an island nation that is almost totally dependant on imports. By mid '45, the Japanese navy and air force were destroyed, there was no one that would’ve tried to run a blockade to support them. Were there any serious discussions to that end, or did the Allies think they needed boots in Tokyo to ensure a surrender? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/26 "2007-08-06T14:43:13Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic] They were nowhere near the terms demanded by the allies in any case. It was basicly an attempt to get a ‘half-time’ so they could recover and resume their wars at their leisure. In other words, not in good faith. [/QUOTE] Let me agree here. Their “peace feelers” tended to be of the type which says "uh, we can all go home and not fight anymore [size=6]and we can keep our little empire, right?[/size=6]. It would have done nothing about stopping the possibility of another war, which would almost certainly have happened. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/27 "2007-08-06T14:46:47Z")
[QUOTE=jk1245] As kind of an aside, I’ve long thought that the invasion of Japan probably wasn’t necessary. [snip] Were there any serious discussions to that end, or did the Allies think they needed boots in Tokyo to ensure a surrender? [/QUOTE] Pretty much yes tot he latter statement. They weren’t going to quit, and frankly, the bombing runs and so forth were expensive, and even the safer ones occaissionally lost planes. It would have taken years, maybe a decade, to work, if it worked at all. Aside from which, Japan already had virtually notihng left to ship, anyway. The merchant marine was _gone_. Rolling stock was virtually extinct. There wasn’t anything left to break, and the bomber commanders were having a tough time finding useful targets. It took something like 5 years after the war to get the country’s economy back to a workable state. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/28 "2007-08-06T14:48:09Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] The Japanese had been sending suicide missions to destroy the navel forces of the U.S. [/QUOTE] An attack at the very belly button of our sea power. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/29 "2007-08-06T15:05:59Z")
I must disagree with **Der Trihs** , Japan was most certainly out to kill America/ns. They did a pretty good job in China with that country’s population . I’ve no doubt that had the attack on Pearl been the 100% success they aimed for (total destruction of the US fleet) then Japanese warships would soon have made their presence felt in US harbours along with troops ready to occupy as much of the country as they could. While they may not have been able to subjugate America they would have been pretty brutal in their efforts to do so ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/30 "2007-08-06T15:40:17Z")
[QUOTE=chowder] I must disagree with **Der Trihs** , Japan was most certainly out to kill America/ns. They did a pretty good job in China with that country’s population . I’ve no doubt that had the attack on Pearl been the 100% success they aimed for (total destruction of the US fleet) then Japanese warships would soon have made their presence felt in US harbours along with troops ready to occupy as much of the country as they could. While they may not have been able to subjugate America they would have been pretty brutal in their efforts to do so [/QUOTE] Let’s see your cite for the idea that Japan was out to subjugate the US. They were out to subjugate East Asia and attacked the Pearl Harbor to get the US fleet out of the way. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/31 "2007-08-06T15:44:09Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] Why are the views of all these guys who were so close to the situation (well, OK, Hoover wasn’t) discounted by modern revisionists? [/QUOTE] Haven’t most historians traditionally said dropping the bomb was a good thing, and that the idea that dropping it was bad is the newer, revisionist view? So, it seems like you have it backwards in terms of labels. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/32 "2007-08-06T15:51:36Z")
The Japanese were being fire bombed ,city after city. I am not even sure the bomb killed as many as the bombing raids did. It sure was quicker and more spectacular though. People in Hiroshima thought they were especially blessed by god because they were not bombed . They did not know they were an experiment to see the results of a abomb on a untouched city. Logic for the bomb is pretty good. Problem is we dropped TWO. That is where I get lost . ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/33 "2007-08-06T15:53:29Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] I don’t really buy the idea that any invasion of U.S. armed forces would’ve been that bad – for us, anyway. If the Japanese hadn’t surrendered, we were prepared to completely destroy the internal logistics for supplying food to the civilian population. Millions would have starved or died of disease. We could create the conditions whereby Japan wouldn’t be a viable nation. If nothing else, if you think the atomic bombs made Japan surrender then it saved far more Japanese lives than American. The Japanese would’ve had to surrender eventually. [/QUOTE] I think this is hindsight, and poor hindsight at that. We need to look no further than the battle of Okinawa to see how bloody the battle for Japan would have been. Okinawa was part of Japan, but not considered Japan proper by many Japanese. They viewed Okinawans as red headed step children - the Japanese soldiers hated the Okinawans. I think the closest analogy for American would be the invasion of Puerto Rico, and this way be a poor analogy. During this three month battle, of an island not viewed as Japan by the defenders, the allies lost 12,000 dead, and 40,000 wounded. The Japanese lost 66,000 dead and 17,000 wounded, with 150,000 civilian causalities. In the aftermath of this battle, I have no idea how some think that the Japanese were “ready to surrender”. The invasion of Japan would have been much bloodier than any other, to both nations. The dropping of the atomic bombs saved lives. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/34 "2007-08-06T15:55:26Z")
I’d like to point out few things: 1. After spending 2 Billion dollars (1% of GDP, which would be equivalent to 140 Billion dollars today), there was basically NO WAY that we were not going to use these “devices”. 2. Japan had been so heavily bombed that the planners had to pick out relatively insignificant targets to test the bombs on. They wanted to gauge how destructive they were on a city that was unscathed to being with. 3. There were discussions surrounding the choice of targets, and it was concluded that a “show” explosion would be unconvincing - only the actual destruction of a city would convince the Japanese to surrender. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/35 "2007-08-06T16:07:28Z")
No, Japan was not out to conquer or subjugate the United States. They beleived we wouldn’t fight them in the Pacific, but were pretty sure they’d be slaughtered if they set foot in the US itself. Their “Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” plans didn’t include the US or anything farther than Hawaii, and that just as a perimeter naval base. They knew the Unioted States has more people, more guns, and much more firepower. They gambled that they could hit us hard and then sign an immediate peace. [QUOTE=gonzomax] Logic for the bomb is pretty good. Problem is we dropped TWO. That is where I get lost . [/QUOTE] First one didn’t work. They had a chance to surrender, and didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/36 "2007-08-06T16:20:05Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] Let’s see your cite for the idea that Japan was out to subjugate the US. They were out to subjugate East Asia and attacked the Pearl Harbor to get the US fleet out of the way. [/QUOTE] Are you being deliberately obtuse?. They were in alliance with Nazi Germany whose aim was total world domination ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/37 "2007-08-06T16:28:56Z")
[QUOTE=spifflog] In the aftermath of this battle, I have no idea how some think that the Japanese were “ready to surrender”. The invasion of Japan would have been much bloodier than any other, to both nations. The dropping of the atomic bombs saved lives. [/QUOTE] Japan wouldn’t have surrendered? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report published in 1946 [says:](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw) > [@](#): > > There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan’s unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan’s disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. > > Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. Major General Curtis LeMay: > [@](#): > > The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz: > [@](#): > > The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. Admiral William D. Leahy: > [@](#): > > The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. Maybe they’re all mistaken, I don’t know. I’d tend to agree with those who say our dropping of the a-bombs on Japan was influenced mostly by the actions of the USSR. We wanted Japan to surrender as fast as possible, and it’s very probable that the a-bombs did help in that fashion. The only point I’d really wish to lay down in this thread is that the morality of the a-bombings just isn’t that different from what we’d been doing for months and months with firebombing and the mining of the harbors, and would’ve paled in comparison to what we would have done to Japan if they had not hypothetically surrendered (why would we needlessly invade when we could starve 40 million people to death?). ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/38 "2007-08-06T16:36:03Z")
Your closing paragraph. It’s extremely doubtful if the American people would have allowed 40 million Japanese to starve to death. Americans may have hated the Japanese for what they did at Pearl Harbor but to let 40,000,000 starve is not in the American psyche ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/39 "2007-08-06T16:37:54Z")
[QUOTE=chowder] [QUOTE=sqweels] Let’s see your cite for the idea that Japan was out to subjugate the US. They were out to subjugate East Asia and attacked the Pearl Harbor to get the US fleet out of the way. [/QUOTE] Are you being deliberately obtuse?. They were in alliance with Nazi Germany whose aim was total world domination [/QUOTE] I’ve never heard that Japan was looking to conquer any part of North America. Can you point to anything to suggest that they were? Japan’s alliance with Germany doesn’t really speak to Japan’s strategic goals. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603/40 "2007-08-06T16:39:24Z")
The Axis powers were out to conquer the WORLD. Japan was part of that axis. That’s my point [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-nagasaki/414603.md?page=3)