Was Dropping the Atomic Bomb Necessary for Ending the War with Japan?

[shyboy]

First question is was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima necessary? I'll leave that a bit vague knowing that "necessary" and "justified" are different, but feel free to comment on both.

Second, given the effect of the Hiroshima bomb, what of the Nagasaki bomb?

If something like this has already been asked sue me, I didn't know.

Edited January 11, 2008 by shyboy

[D'kian]

First question is was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima necessary? I'll leave that a bit vague knowing that "necessary" and "justified" are different, but feel free to comment on both.

This requires a long answer. I'll tackle it when I ahve the time, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Short version, Japan was far from finished by the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Second, given the effect of the Hiroshima bomb, what of the Nagasaki bomb?

Yes. there are two reasons:

1) If you do something once and never repeat it, the assumption is that you could only do it once. If you can repeat it, though, the assumption is you can keep on doing it indefinitely. So while losing one city to one bomb was terrible, it doesn't really matter unless it can be done again. therefore Nagasaki.

2) Japan did not surrender after Hiroshima.

[aleph_0]

First, I think the question may be mis-directed. If you ask, was the bomb necessary for ending the war, no, I don't believe it was at all. In fact, just before dropping the bomb, we probably could have signed a peace treaty, so long as we did not require any right to occupy the mainland. However, I have strong doubts that this would have precluded a second, future war, which the atomic bombs did preclude.

Secondly, I think a more appropriate question would be, were the bombs necessary for securing American lives? The answer here is yes, absolutely. The job of our government is to protect our people--soldiers and civilians--to its fullest capacity. If just one American life could have been saved by annihilating the whole of the Japanese island, it would be incumbent upon our government to do just that. Not out of vengance, racism, imperialism, insensitivity to humanity, or any other ridiculousness; but out of the duty that the American government has to Americans.

[shyboy]

First, I think the question may be mis-directed.

Well thats how they pose the question in schools...

[KendallJ]

Well, that is what the search functionality is for.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...te=%2Bhiroshima

That search list has some interesting threads.

"Give my 5 reasons we should not nuke Tehran" discussed the use of overwhelming force.

"Are there innocents in War" discusses that topic.

Also, The Objective Standard had several articles on the just use of force.

No Substitute for Victory

Sherman and the moral Impetus for Victory

The basic answer is yes, the bombing of Japan into submission (until their surrender) is justified, and moral.

Regarding the "necessary" vs. "justified" distinction, moral evaluations must be taken without the benefit of hindsight. One can certainly say that there might have been other options in hindsight, but the men making that decisoin are not required to have omniscience, and whether or not the decision was optimum, it was still moral.

[aleph_0]

Well thats how they pose the question in schools...

That's fine, and it's not an illegitimate question. Still to ask it implies the next question, "Should we have dropped the bomb?" If you answer the literal question without answering the implied question, you risk permitting mis-information.

So in short, if I were asked this question in school, the answer I gave above would be the answer I would give to the school.

[adrock3215]

Justified, yes. Necessary, who knows? I take necessary to mean 'the only available option.' Anyone on this board who claims it was necessary is wrong, and anyone who claims it wasn't necessary is wrong. There is no accurate way to answer the 'necessary' part of this question.

The job of our government is to protect our people--soldiers and civilians--to its fullest capacity. If just one American life could have been saved by annihilating the whole of the Japanese island, it would be incumbent upon our government to do just that. Not out of vengance, racism, imperialism, insensitivity to humanity, or any other ridiculousness; but out of the duty that the American government has to Americans.

Dangerous wording here (incumbent, as in obligatory; duty, as in an action of paternalism) but I believe I understand what you mean: to put such a ridiculous situation in black and white terms is an exagerration to illustrate your point. While I agree that the American government would be justified in "annihilating" the whole of the Japanese island to save one American life, that doesn't lead one to the conclusion that it is an "incumbent" action.

[shyboy]

Here is a list of pros and cons I found. Don't know if it is is biased or not.

Why the bomb was needed or justified:

The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.

With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.

An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.

Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.

The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.

Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

[LaszloWalrus]

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

I've selected a few of these objections to answer. Why is being the first nation to use nuclear weapons bad? Are nuclear weapons intrinsically bad? Otherwise, the objection that the U.S. should not have been "the first nation to use nuclear weapons" is pointless.

As to the two cities being of limited military value: even assuming that that claim is true, killing massive numbers of civilians was the point. Killing massive numbers of civilians showed the general Japanese population the price of Japan's aggression.

As to the claim that the U.S. did not "give enough time for word to filter" before bombing Nagasaki: since when is it a nation's obligation to wait for an aggressor to get the message? Waiting would have led to many more Allied lives lost.

The claim that "American refusal to modify its 'unconditional surrender' demand to allow the Japanese to keep the emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance" is strange. A surrender with strings attached is not a real surrender.

[D'kian]

Another thing. The question says "ending the war." That's not the same as "winning the war." And winning should be the objective in any war.

[aleph_0]

Dangerous wording here (incumbent, as in obligatory; duty, as in an action of paternalism) but I believe I understand what you mean: to put such a ridiculous situation in black and white terms is an exagerration to illustrate your point. While I agree that the American government would be justified in "annihilating" the whole of the Japanese island to save one American life, that doesn't lead one to the conclusion that it is an "incumbent" action.

Duty is just a moral obligation, so an example of a duty would be fulfilling a contract. No individual has a duty unto another person, as such, but anybody who takes on a government job, which is a job that focuses on the protection of individuals within a country, it is incumbent upon that person to execute that office to its fullest extent.

[adrock3215]

Duty is just a moral obligation, so an example of a duty would be fulfilling a contract. No individual has a duty unto another person, as such, but anybody who takes on a government job, which is a job that focuses on the protection of individuals within a country, it is incumbent upon that person to execute that office to its fullest extent.

Ahh ok. I see your use of incumbent in that sense. In your original post, you said If just one American life could have been saved by annihilating the whole of the Japanese island, it would be incumbent upon our government to do just that.

It is "incumbent" upon a government official to execute his office to its fullest extent. But the fullest extent may mean that saving one person by leveling the Japanese islands is not in the best interests of his country. In such a circumstance it wouldn't be incumbent on or a duty of that officeholder to annihilate the Japanese islands. The officeholder may conclude that it is of greater interest to his constituency to not annihilate the islands, and to let the one American life perish. In such a circumstance, one can see how I was troubled by your use of "incumbent."

[DavidOdden]

The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa.

...

With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.

...

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway.

...

A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

These are the arguments that should be taken seriously. The lack of sufficient numbers of bombs (plus the lack of absolute certainty that they would function and that any particular bomb would actually make it to target) means that in that context, demonstrations are unacceptably risky. Then we just have to evaluate the claim that Japan was ready to surrender anyhow. That's an issue regarding evidence -- it may well be that Japan was ready to surrender, but they had not communicated that fact at all clearly. OTOH they had very effectively communicated the concept "fanatical devotion, fight to the death" throughout the war. Even if a Japanese under-undersecretary of war had written in his notebook "I believe we must surrender any day", that would not be sufficient evidence that the power-wielders would, with certainty, surrender. Moral judgment is relative to knowledge context -- it is not possible to pass rational moral judgment based on how a man integrates knowledge that he does not have.

[aleph_0]

In what way could a government official justify allowing an American life to perish in exchange for enemy combatants? I could see if the justification were something along the lines, "If we dropped the bomb, then we would be attacked by many other nations and would not be able to defend ourselves against such a vast and unified front." That was obviously not the case in Japan, but perhaps in another context that rationale (one which still holds American lives as the primary focus of martial and government action) would be appropriate. But if it were for something else, like trade relations or diplomacy, I don't see how any such thing could be excusable.

[agrippa1]

First question is was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima necessary?

My mother and her family were in a Japanese POW camp in Indonesia when the bombs were dropped. Before then, word had reached them that the Japanese were going to exterminate their prisoners as the Allies drove them back towards Japan. So from my point of view, absolutely, positively, yes, the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary.

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. ... the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

...

Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

So the argument is that the difference between being invaded by the Soviets or by the U.S. is "simply politics" ??? If anything, this one reason could be given as the single justifying factor for using the bombs. We took the lives of a few hundred thousand, but in doing so saved the lives of the entire nation (or, at least, the Soviets' share). So from the Japanese' point of view, absolutely, positively, yes, it was necessary. (It's no coincidence that the Japs have been one of our closest allies for the past sixty years. They understand the hell from which they were spared by our "power politics")

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

Agreed, the use of fire-bombing would have been as destructive as the nukes, but, would have dragged the war out, taken countless American lives, and left the Japanese nation subject to enslavement and slow murder by the Soviets. So from the point of view of all but the hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing America-loathing academia and assorted fellow traveling freedom-haters: absolutely, positively: Yes.

Edited January 12, 2008 by agrippa1

[Rourke]

I just happened to have read a book covering this exact topic over the summer called Choices Under Fire: Moral Dimensions of World War II by Michael Bess. It was a fascinating read and, among many other topics, goes over the pros and cons of A-bombing Japan. Shyboy has a pretty good run-down of those in his post. To add to the list of Pro's, there is the consideration of the war in Asia at the time, where Japan had over 3 million troops. Hundereds of thousands of soldiers and civilians were dying every month there. So the bomb actually resulted in a net saving of lives in the final analysis, because the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably only came to 80,000 or so (closer to 200,000 when counting residual deaths).

He does present a compelling case for the possibility of a demonstration. This would have given us a moral "out", so to speak, by giving the Japanese the knowledge to decide their own fate. Certainly we were not going to avoid using the bomb and attempt an extended blockade or invasion (although invasion was imminent if the bomb had not been completed). But a demonstration would have been an acceptable solution, because using a bomb for a demonstration would have been powerful evidence that we had more than enough of them that we could waste one on a demonstration. In fact we could have had a nother bomb ready in a matter of weeks, giving us a backup.

In regard to the first bomb, it is likely we did not wait long enough for news to get out about the damage. The Emperor (the man who made the final surrender decision) in fact had no idea the scale of destruction until after Nagasaki. So some wait time may have precluded the need for a second bomb.

To address what we did know vs what we did not know: what was clear, is that we did in fact know that Japan's supreme war council was split down the middle regarding surrender, with 3 members favoring some overture for surrender and 3 wanting to fight on to the bitter end (even after the A-bombs). Remember we had broken the Japanese codes early in the war and knew quite a bit about what was going on in Japan.

But what's interesting here is that as the war went on, America's revulsion towards civilian killing ebbed away. An insistance on precision bombing of military targets evolved into mass firebombing of population centers. Dropping the A-bomb would almost certainly have not been considered a first option in the first year of the war, but the mounting casualties took their toll on America's moral reluctance about killing civilians. By the end of the war, there wasn't really any meaningful discussion about the morality/immorallity of doing it. As Bess concludes, such is the nature of war.

I am of the opinion that the ends does not justify the means, that the eagerness to kill any number of civilians is in most cases too barbaric a cost to pay for victory. Alternative means should be explored if at all possible. To illustrate, it is much easier to fly thousands of feet over a target and drop death on civilians than it is to go door to door and slit the throats of women and children. You would not find many who would willingly perform the latter, but in the end the result is the same.

The claim that "American refusal to modify its 'unconditional surrender' demand to allow the Japanese to keep the emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance" is strange. A surrender with strings attached is not a real surrender.

Well this is in fact the surrender terms we did finally accept anyway in the end. So in your opinion the Japanese didn't surrender?

I've selected a few of these objections to answer. Why is being the first nation to use nuclear weapons bad? Are nuclear weapons intrinsically bad? Otherwise, the objection that the U.S. should not have been "the first nation to use nuclear weapons" is pointless.

What makes this problematic is that it sets the precedent for their use. It is why, to this day even, we do not hold the moral high ground, because we condemn other nations for acquiring the bomb, but we in fact are the only nation to actually use it. We have reasoned here why in the end it may have been necessary anyway, but other nations are now free to use their own "reasoning" on whether they should be used. We have since come to the general concensus that their use should be unthinkable in all but the most dire circumstances (i.e. protection of the homeland), but the toothpaste is out of the tube now, so to speak.

If just one American life could have been saved by annihilating the whole of the Japanese island, it would be incumbent upon our government to do just that. Not out of vengance, racism, imperialism, insensitivity to humanity, or any other ridiculousness; but out of the duty that the American government has to Americans.

What you might find interesting is that in Hiroshima there were quite a few American and other Allied POW's, who all perished in the blast.

[LaszloWalrus]

Well this is in fact the surrender terms we did finally accept anyway in the end. So in your opinion the Japanese didn't surrender?

The US only accepted the Japanese terms AFTER the Japanese offered unconditional surrender. The important point was that the Japanese were WILLING to accept ANY terms after the second bomb.

I assume others will take up the other points in your post.

[Thales]

Let me add another point, this was WAR! We HATED the Japanese, because they were killers who had killed and were killing thousands of Americans, and we didn't want to take the chance of them killing more. The Japanese were brutal and we wanted to punish them big time. When you see fellow Americans being killed, you aren't in a mood to play games. You aren't thinking of how to be nice, you're thinking of how to end the damn threat as swiftly as possible. This seems to be a point being missed. Multiculturalists who make this into a cause always evade the big picture.

[aleph_0]

What you might find interesting is that in Hiroshima there were quite a few American and other Allied POW's, who all perished in the blast.

Interesting, I hadn't even considered that. I wonder how many there were and whether there is a possibility that this number would have been greater than the number projected to die in further conventional fighting.

[FeatherFall]

Interesting, I hadn't even considered that. I wonder how many there were and whether there is a possibility that this number would have been greater than the number projected to die in further conventional fighting.

I seriously doubt these numbers will show the US might have benifited by not dropping the bomb, especially given the notion that the Japanese might've killed prisoners during retreats.

I think a nation should always look for the least bloody option for ending a war - as long as priority is given to that nation's own people. This is why I am intrigued with the Idea of the nuclear warning shot. I don't think it would have worked on it's own, though. Something like bombing Hiroshima, then warning shot within sight of Tokyo might have worked.

[Thales]

I seriously doubt these numbers will show the US might have benifited by not dropping the bomb, especially given the notion that the Japanese might've killed prisoners during retreats.

A long protracted war against the main islands would have resulted in a much bloodier war for America. Fire bombings, like those on Dresden, would have resulted in lots of deaths on the ground.

I think a nation should always look for the least bloody option for ending a war - as long as priority is given to that nation's own people.

A price must be paid for those who are evil enough to start a war against a peaceful nation. When you take military action against a peaceful society you're engaged in mass murder. The gravity of war and the evil of the initiators is not a trivial issue.

This is why I am intrigued with the Idea of the nuclear warning shot. I don't think it would have worked on it's own, though. Something like bombing Hiroshima, then warning shot within sight of Tokyo might have worked.

When you are a citizen of a society that actively spreads death and destruction, you are not an innocent soul, you are part of the cause of death and destruction, this is why you have to expect to be targeted in righteous anger by those who have been so massively wronged. The idea that you are intrigued by a "warning shot" shows me you how little understanding of what such an enemy can do and what they did. Least it not be forgotten, the Japanese citizens were actively supporting the war machine.

The stories I’ve heard and read about how the Japanese treated prisoners aren’t stories that evoke love and respect. WWII vets live to this day to relate such horrors.

[shyboy]

A long protracted war against the main islands would have resulted in a much bloodier war for America. Fire bombings, like those on Dresden, would have resulted in lots of deaths on the ground.

A price must be paid for those who are evil enough to start a war against a peaceful nation. When you take military action against a peaceful society you're engaged in mass murder. The gravity of war and the evil of the initiators is not a trivial issue.

When you are a citizen of a society that actively spreads death and destruction, you are not an innocent soul, you are part of the cause of death and destruction, this is why you have to expect to be targeted in righteous anger by those who have been so massively wronged. The idea that you are intrigued by a "warning shot" shows me you how little understanding of what such an enemy can do and what they did. Least it not be forgotten, the Japanese citizens were actively supporting the war machine.

The stories I’ve heard and read about how the Japanese treated prisoners aren’t stories that evoke love and respect. WWII vets live to this day to relate such horrors.

Man, I dunno...

Society, if I understand correctly, is merely just a collection of individuals.

[DavidOdden]

Society, if I understand correctly, is merely just a collection of individuals.

But you are also an individual who has not prevented those other individuals from spreading death and destruction, and you are an individual who has chosen to remain associated with and in various ways supporting these other death-and-destruction spreaders. That choice will have consequences which you must take responsibility for, and if you do not wish to take responsibility for that choice, you should make another choice.

[FeatherFall]

Whoa there, Thales.

For a layman, I'm pretty familiar with the atrocities of the Japanese war machine and 20th century Japanese culture. I simply don't see a purpose in post-war punitive action visited on anyone other than the political big wigs and military brass that start hostilities. I am curious why you show an aversion to the thought of ending the war with fewer Japanese deaths.

If we could have ended the war with a simple warning shot and no actual destruction (I'm not saying we could, just an hypothetical), are you saying this would be wrong for a lack of punished civilians? If so, why not keep dropping nukes until every Japanese person is killed? They were complicit in the deaths of 10s of thousands.

The vast majority of Japan obeyed the terms of surrender, and turned into a great ally for the US. Do you think the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been different?

[DavidOdden]

I simply don't see a purpose in post-war punitive action visited on anyone other than the political big wigs and military brass that start hostilities.

Dropping two A-bombs in order to end the war is not a post-war punitive action. Are you suggesting that there was actually a post-war punitive action inflicted on the general populace of the Axis aggressor nations? Actual punishments were dealt out for instance to Tojo, who was justly hanged for his actions, but not the the general population.