The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[mikegriffith1]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

 

[rightwinger]

I agree
There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.

While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary

 

[sparky]

Truman was the only real advocate. Stimson (sec of war) , along with the majority of top generals saw no need, nor any ending utilizing the bomb.

The real negotiation card was the Russians , Manchuria , the underlying economic inevitability , least of all the public execution of the emperor , which would have been (at the time) akin to crucifying Christ in our culture.

~S~

 

[candycorn]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

 

[mudwhistle]

I agree
There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.

While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary

Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

 

[sparky]

Actually Truman's own cabinet publicly stated the bomb would put us on par with the German genocide at the time, and the dept of defense stifled all Truman's top generals , insisting all comments be vetted first

Further, the 'it would have saved millions' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals

~S~

 

[sparky]

The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat.

nope

they knew they were done, and were negotiating

the Russians were a huge part of that

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.

The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.

The real game changer was the USSR entering the war. It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.

The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.

.

 

[JoeB131]

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness. "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."

I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.

AFTER the war. After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.

But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people? Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Recall that they attacked us.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.

The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.

The real game changer was the USSR entering the war. It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.

The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.

.

The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn
THey ignored it !!!
The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient

 

[miketx]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Right, like you know anything you haven't been fed. If anything we should have then nuked China and the USSR.

 

[JoeB131]

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

Except that the bombs didn't end the war. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

Except that the bombs didn't end the war. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.

I and history disagree with you.

 

[miketx]

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

Except that the bombs didn't end the war. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.

Sez the habitual America hating liar. Strange how the Japs surrendered very shortly after we set them on fire,

 

[fncceo]

Don't start nothin, there won't be nothin'

-- FDR

 

[mikegriffith1]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.

 

[JoeB131]

The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn
THey ignored it !!!
The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient

The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis.

We lost 400,000. You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism.

The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.

The thing few people talk about was how after the USSR got into it, the US dropped it's insistence on trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which he obviously was. In fact, a massive whitewash was done after the war to make it look like Hirohito was this nice guy who just wanted to study marine biology and those mean old generals tricked him into a war.