# why did we drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342 "2012-09-21T00:37:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/101 "2012-09-26T14:18:19Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > To add to the points you’ve made Japan has serious logistical problems. (. . .) Their logistics problems were also seriously compounded by the senseless policy of dividing up their merchant marine between the IJA and IJN, who jealously guarded their resources and didn’t cooperate sufficiently. > [@](#): > > As I said recently in the kamikaze thread, Japan also had serious problems with the ability to provide adequate pilot training as the war drew on. (. . .)The fuel was being produced in the captured fields in the Dutch East Indies, but less and less of it was being transported as the merchant fleet was being sunk faster than it could be replaced. All points which are part of Japan’s basic premise that it was going to be a short war. Wishful thinking. This was only matched by the US and Britain’s serious underestimation of Japan’s capabilities and tenacity prior to the war. Had the US started its preparations several months earlier, _and_ taken Japan as seriously as they were forced to later, it would have been much less costly for them. > [@](#): > > Excellent post but I have to disagree with you here. Nazi racial policies and plans which were the entire point of invading the USSR severely hampered what they could do; and these policies to take lebensraum in the east was the whole point of invading the USSR in the first place. I do get into more trouble when I stray off the Pacific theater, and especially on the Eastern front. However, I do wonder if they couldn’t have cooped some of the other Slovic people until after they punished Stalin a bit more. Of course, dictators on world conquest \*have \*to be recklessly overly optimistic, or they remain unsuccessful painters their whole lives. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/102 "2012-09-26T17:14:22Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > The Japanese grew their industrial might tremendously in the 1930s from almost nothing to pretty large, but they were still _nine_ times smaller than the US. And “_nine_ times smaller” was at the most _favorable_ point of comparison. John Keegan wrote that the overall “index of war production” (a measure of militarily-useful output) favored the United States 20:1. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > They didn’t have any oil and other valuable natural resources For oil, the “index of war production” was 100:1 (presumably counting what Japan was able to extract from her conquests). Since panic over the oil embargo was a large part of the decision that triggered the Pearl Harbor attack, it’s _really_ telling…start a war for oil and get outproduced 100:1? Ouch. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/103 "2012-09-26T17:47:15Z")
> [@Lazlo Hapsburg](#): > > I have never understood why it is estimated that so many American lives would be lost. > > Suppose the US blockaded the Japanese home islands. How long could the Japanese have held out without importing any food or other necessities? > > Could they feed themselves without imports? > > My guess is that they could not really do a satisfactory job of feeding themselves unless they imported food and other necessities from other nations. > > If that is true, then the issue might not have been so much about saving lives as it would be about saving money. > > In other words, it would have cost the US more money to keep the war going with their blockade of Japan. It would be an expensive thing to do. But, ultimately, it would force Japan to surrender or starve. > > In that case, we would still have been able to win the war without much loss of life. It would have cost us more money. But we still could have won and we still could have avoided all that loss of life. > > Of course, producing an atom bomb was hugely expensive and I’m not at all certain how to estimate the cost of maintaining a blockade until Japan surrendered vs. the cost of producing two atom bombs. Who do you think would have died of starvation first? The poor and the working class or the folks who decide to ‘stick it out’ until it got hard on them. You see, that’s the problem with aristocracy the poor and the workers die first while the upper class can continue to fight (with their well fed bellies) ---
**Author:** ![rklewis2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba8739/32.png) [@rklewis2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rklewis2)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/104 "2012-09-26T19:50:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You seem to be confused about how starvation works. People who don’t have food die. > > I don’t understand the morality of saying letting millions of people starve to death is better than killing thousands of people with a bomb. If starvation would’ve run it’s course in the way you’re talking about, then yes, more people may have died. Truth be told: The US had, prior to dropping the bombs, run pretty much out of strategic targets. Thus, the Japanese had no capability to make war. At that point, our options would be to blockade, and bomb food production - causing starvation. Invade - at the cost of huge amounts of American and Japanese lives. Or drop the bombs, ending the war very quickly, at the immediate cost of about 250k lives. Of course, many, many thousands more died from radiation poisoning as a direct result of the bombs, so the real death total is much higher than 250k. Probably somewhere in the 700+k range. I would think that a country that has no hope of winning, and _facing_ starvation, would make the best choice and simply surrender _before_ people started starving to death. They no longer wanted war. Why would they? It was hopeless. I think they would have done so before widescale starvation would’ve happened. IMO, dropping the bombs was unnecessary, and there were other motives to do so, other than what history books tell us. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/105 "2012-09-26T20:56:35Z")
> [@rklewis2](#): > > . . . At that point, our options would be to blockade, and bomb food production - causing starvation. Invade - at the cost of huge amounts of American and Japanese lives. Or drop the bombs, ending the war very quickly, at the immediate cost of about 250k lives. . . . What would have happened if demonstration bombing was performed using conventional weaponry? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed by fire-bombing in the same time-frame, would that have served the same purpose? Could a “bells and whistles” conventional weapon – something that stood out, the way the V1 and V2 stood out, with psychological leverage – have been devised. e.g., dropping lots and lots of “flash” bombs ahead of the fire bombs? It seems that the Japanese government was close to the edge of making the decision, and the A-Bombs tipped that balance. Could something else have done it? I am not saying “should.” I’m only asking “could?” Alternate history without judgement. My judgement is that the U.S. did the “least wrong” thing known at the time. But with hindsight, can we envision them having come up with something else? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/106 "2012-09-26T21:22:32Z")
> [@rklewis2](#): > > Truth be told: The US had, prior to dropping the bombs, run pretty much out of strategic targets. Thus, the Japanese had no capability to make war. False. They had the ability to cause a great deal of casualties to to the US. > [@](#): > > Of course, many, many thousands more died from radiation poisoning as a direct result of the bombs, so the real death total is much higher than 250k. Probably somewhere in the 700+k range. Cite? Making us facts is entertaining, but irrelevant to the discussion at hone. > [@](#): > > They no longer wanted war. Why would they? It was hopeless. I take it the thread was too long to read entirely? > [@](#): > > IMO, dropping the bombs was unnecessary, and there were other motives to do so, other than what history books tell us. Mostly likely they planned to assassinate Kennedy. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/107 "2012-09-26T21:25:40Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Mostly likely they planned to assassinate Kennedy. They almost had him when they arranged to have that boat out in front of a destroyer at night. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/108 "2012-09-26T21:32:51Z")
> [@rklewis2](#): > > If starvation would’ve run it’s course in the way you’re talking about, then yes, more people may have died. > > Truth be told: The US had, prior to dropping the bombs, run pretty much out of strategic targets. Thus, the Japanese had no capability to make war. At that point, our options would be to blockade, and bomb food production - causing starvation. Invade - at the cost of huge amounts of American and Japanese lives. Or drop the bombs, ending the war very quickly, at the immediate cost of about 250k lives. Of course, many, many thousands more died from radiation poisoning as a direct result of the bombs, so the real death total is much higher than 250k. Probably somewhere in the 700+k range. > > I would think that a country that has no hope of winning, and _facing_ starvation, would make the best choice and simply surrender _before_ people started starving to death. > > They no longer wanted war. Why would they? It was hopeless. > > I think they would have done so before widescale starvation would’ve happened. > > IMO, dropping the bombs was unnecessary, and there were other motives to do so, other than what history books tell us. That’s pretty much what did happen. Japan didn’t suddenly face a starvation threat in August of 1945. They had already been facing starvation for months. If they were going to surrender due to imminent starvation they would have already done so. But they hadn’t surrendered. The Japanese military, which was effectively running the country at this point, had already decided to keep fighting on. They had made plans for who would have their food cut off so the troops could get eating and fighting. They were going to allow people to die of starvation. It was a cold-blooded self-interest issue for the generals and admirals. They figured they’d be killed by the Americans after the surrender. So they were willing to keep fighting because another year of war was another year of life for them. And they were willing to have millions of Japanese people die so they could stay alive a little longer. It was the same thing that happened in Germany. Rationally, Germany should have surrendered in 1944. But people like Hitler and Himmler and Goering kept the war going as long as possible to protect themselves without caring about the cost to ordinary Germans. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/109 "2012-09-26T21:54:42Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > They almost had him when they arranged to have that boat out in front of a destroyer at night. Of course, no one suspected someone with a bad back could escape, so this is why they HAD to use the bombs. Still, this begs the question, other than 9-11 and global warming what else do history books cover up? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/110 "2012-09-26T22:02:31Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Of course, no one suspected someone with a bad back could escape, so this is why they HAD to use the bombs. > > Still, this begs the question, other than 9-11 and global warming what else do history books cover up? How could you forget FDR & Pearl Harbor?? The British orchestrating the Lusitannia affair?? ---
**Author:** ![moonshot925](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f0a364/32.png) [@moonshot925](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moonshot925)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/111 "2012-09-26T22:04:26Z")
I think the gap between American and Japanese petroleum production was closer to 400:1 ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/112 "2012-09-26T22:39:59Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > And “_nine_ times smaller” was at the most _favorable_ point of comparison. John Keegan wrote that the overall “index of war production” (a measure of militarily-useful output) favored the United States 20:1. Japan had enough to fight a war over the time frame which they believed it would occur. I’m reading a book by Louis Morton, written while he worked in the navy historical office, and he argues that as the Japanese military believed the West was trying to destroy them anyway, their choice wasn’t as crazy as most people feel. > [@](#): > > In the view of the leaders of Japan, there was no honorable choice but war. > The United States and Great Britain, they were convinced, were bent on destroying > Japan or reducing it to a minor power. Submission was unthinkable and Japan had no alternative, “but to resolutely plunge into war” while it still had the power to do so. The nation entered the war, wrote a prince of the Imperial family, “with a tragic determination and in desperate self-abandonment.” If it lost, “there will be nothing to regret because she is doomed to collapse even without war.” What’s interesting is that this provides insight not only into the reason for starting the war, but also into the reason why some were opposed to ending the war short of complete defeat. The fanatics believed in a concept of _yamato deshi_, the unique spirit of the Japanese, and _kokutai_, the fundamental character of the state, which depended on having an emperor. Without getting too far off into that, enough people within the military, especially the army, held this to be the fundamental truth. Prince Higashikuni’s comments were made in 1949, so right after the war, and right in the middle of the Great Regret period. While more leaders in the IJN certainly had “a tragic determination and in desperate self-abandonment” there is less evidence that this was common in higher officer ranks of the army. By the bitter end, it was down to the ultranationalists left believing it was better that they all die than to abandon the _kokutai_. > [@](#): > > For oil, the “index of war production” was 100:1 (presumably counting what Japan was able to extract from her conquests). Since panic over the oil embargo was a large part of the decision that triggered the Pearl Harbor attack, it’s _really_ telling…start a war for oil and get outproduced 100:1? Ouch. **Dissonance** points out that they were producing enough oil from the Dutch East Indies, the problem was they couldn’t get it through to the mainlands. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/113 "2012-09-26T23:08:02Z")
> [@rklewis2](#): > > Truth be told: The US had, prior to dropping the bombs, run pretty much out of strategic targets. Thus, the Japanese had no capability to make war. Utter nonsense, belied by the briefest examination of the war. In absolutely no way did Japan have ‘no capability to make war.’ > [@](#): > > At that point, our options would be to blockade, and bomb food production - causing starvation. Invade - at the cost of huge amounts of American and Japanese lives. Again, nonsense. These options were not either/or, they were all already being used simultaneously- aside from bombing food production, which isn’t really possible to do directly. [Japan was **already** under blockade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_submarines_in_the_Pacific_War#Merchant_shipping_losses); they began the war with 6,384,000 tons of merchant shipping and even with the additions of new construction only had 1,466,900 tons available at the end of the war, only 23% of the tonnage they began the war with. > [@](#): > > Or drop the bombs, ending the war very quickly, at the immediate cost of about 250k lives. Of course, many, many thousands more died from radiation poisoning as a direct result of the bombs, so the real death total is much higher than 250k. Probably somewhere in the 700+k range. Your numbers are entirely incorrect; the figure of 250,000 already includes deaths from radiation sickness and associated complications in addition to immediate loss of life. > [@](#): > > I would think that a country that has no hope of winning, and _facing_ starvation, would make the best choice and simply surrender _before_ people started starving to death. You might want to read the thread, these are already topics that have been addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/114 "2012-09-27T00:26:44Z")
> [@rklewis2](#): > > a country that has no hope of winning, and _facing_ starvation, would make the best choice and simply surrender _before_ people started starving to death. A lot of cogent evidence to the contrary has been presented above. It’s also worth noting that essentially no one in the US had the slightest reason to believe this at the time. To the contrary, they saw the consistent Japanese “die to the last man” attitude in various island conquests and quite naturally reckoned - almost certainly correctly - that this would be found in Japan as well. > [@](#): > > IMO, dropping the bombs was unnecessary… This is no doubt correct in the sense that Japan could not have won the war even had the bombs never been developed. But the case that many lives were saved by the decision to use them is strong. A point that has not received a lot of emphasis is that, politically, there was absolutely no choice: People were weary of the war and its cost in lives and treasure. Truman is presented with a weapon, developed at enormous cost, that looks as if it has strong potential to hasten the end of the war, saving untold lives and expense. No trace of revulsion against nuclear weapons yet exists. What possible state of mind could have led him to shelve such a weapon? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/115 "2012-09-27T01:22:35Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > How could you forget FDR & Pearl Harbor?? > > The British orchestrating the Lusitannia affair?? Yes, both really good reasons for covering up the truth of the bombs. I’m torn between including the Lincoln assassination _and_ Washington’s cherry tree or just go with the more provable connection to the Triladderists – the cherry tree. The truth about the incident, that it was a walnut true and not a cherry, was disclosed in a report that all 746 copies were destroyed when the British burned the White House. Coincidence? Why is that that the British were involved in WWII as well _and_ also fighting the Japanese? Why was the first British fighting unit scheduled to land on the beaches called the 746th? Why were the bombs dropped on August, the _8_th month (one more than 7), Hiroshima on the _6_th and there were two bombs, exactly two less than _4_? Truman was born on July 4th, 1896. Why was he picked as the VP? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/116 "2012-09-27T01:27:44Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Your numbers are entirely incorrect; the figure of 250,000 already includes deaths from radiation sickness and associated complications in addition to immediate loss of life. To be fair, I’ve heard estimates up to 7 billion, which points out the obvious danger of atomic bombs to unborn children on other continents. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/117 "2012-09-27T01:31:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It was a cold-blooded self-interest issue for the generals and admirals. They figured they’d be killed by the Americans after the surrender. So they were willing to keep fighting because another year of war was another year of life for them. And they were willing to have millions of Japanese people die so they could stay alive a little longer. No. For reasons outlined above. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/118 "2012-09-27T03:14:40Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > A fucking LOT of American lives. Estimates were as many as 1 million American casualties in the invasion and defeat of Japan. God knows how many multiples of that for Japanese casualties. True, but that estimate was a seat-of-the-pants guess. No studies were done, there is zero paper trail behind it. Furthermore, that estimate was for “unconditional surrender”, which we didn’t get anyway. The only condition was a face-saving one for the Emperor – important to the Japanese and not to us, so maybe not a huge difference. I have little doubt I’d have made the same decision at the time, but it’s silly to give much merit to this “million lives” estimate. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised by a careful study to show that dropping the bomb saved lives (American or Japanese). > [@JohnH](#): > > I’m going to take an unpopular position and say that Total War itself is an atrocity. Agreed. However, “non-total war” is an even bigger atrocity. Regarding the Nagasaki bomb … there wasn’t a specific reason to drop the 2nd bomb. The program was on auto-pilot at that time, and it was pure chance that the bomb (a different design, built by a different team) was ready only 3 days later. A Colonel made the decision to go ahead (based on his standing orders, not based on communications with the top after Hiroshima). However, research shows that after the first bomb, internal high level Japanese comms were filled with “What are we going to do about this? Can we build one?” and not “We must surrender.” After the Nagasaki bomb, it was all over; there was no more will to resist at the highest levels. So, in retrospect, it seems that if dropping #1 was right, then so was dropping #2. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > This - with the attitudes of the time, the real answer as I see it is that they used the bombs because they had them. Nukes weren’t yet in the special near-taboo “threat to humanity, use only in utmost extremity” category we’ve put them in; they were regarded as impressive, but just weapons. I think that’s the real answer: we did because we could, and our goal was to defeat the enemy. Period. I hate the fact that the US used an A bomb – the only nation to do so. But as I said above, I bet I’d have made the same decision at the time. > [@Sailboat](#): > > Ultimately, the atomic bombs saved Japanese “face” – who could be blamed for surrendering when war is no longer war? – and millions of Japanese lives. > > And I say that despite profound personal misgivings over the use of the bombs. My sentiments exactly. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/119 "2012-09-27T04:34:37Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I have little doubt I’d have made the same decision at the time, but it’s silly to give much merit to this “million lives” estimate. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised by a careful study to show that dropping the bomb saved lives (American or Japanese). I presume you are aware of the differences between “casualties” and “lives.” The former refers includes the wounded. The Japanese had plans on killing the Allied POWs before the invasion, a number to that killed within the first four months by the two bombs. There were tens of thousands of Japanese civilians dying from conventional firebombing. The number of Japanese civilians killed had the atomic bombs _not_ been dropped would have been much greater than the number from the two bombs. > [@](#): > > After the Nagasaki bomb, it was all over; there was no more will to resist at the highest levels. No, not even close. See post 91. There are a number of accounts on the web which discuss the surrender of Japan. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342/120 "2012-09-27T07:26:42Z")
> [@John\_H\_1](#): > > I’m going to take an unpopular position and say that Total War itself is an atrocity and Japan and the US were both guilty to some extent. I must have overlooked this the first time round, it’s not an unpopular position that total war is an atrocity at all. I think not only that total war is an atrocity, but that war itself is. To quote Gen. William T. Sherman > [@](#): > > I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard > the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. Or in an alternate version from his speech to the Michigan Military Academy > [@](#): > > I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here. > Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell! > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > No, not even close. See post 91. There are a number of accounts on the web which discuss the surrender of Japan. To add to what you wrote in said post, there was an attempted [palace coup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident) 3 days after Nagasaki on Aug 12, 1945 with the intention of placing the Emperor under house arrest and preventing the broadcast of the Imperial Rescript on surrender. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-we-drop-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan/635342.md?page=7)