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

[rightwinger]

We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki

We had the bomb, nobody else did

At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.

Except that it really wasn't.

What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted. they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.

We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region... As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950. Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.

The Soviets did not have the time to execute an invasion of that magnitude

We had the bomb. Japan’s days were numbered

We had other options than giving Japan two days to decide and killing 150,000 civilians

 

[JoeB131]

Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender.

Um, except they did.

If FDR did nothing to punish the Soviets for their brutality and oppression, why did he choose to pick a fight with the anti-communist Japanese over their arguably justified war in China?

There was nothing to justify Japan's war in China. It was a war of aggression, as bad as anything the Nazis were doing in Europe, maybe worse.

The Japanese were not any more vicious than Mao's Communist Chinese forces were, and the Nationalist Chinese forces certainly did not follow the rules of warfare either in many cases. The Japanese had entirely valid interests in seeking to keep the Communists from coming to power in China, as the whole world saw after the war when Mao came to power and murdered over 20 million Chinese.

Except the Japanese were more intent on fighting the Nationalists (Kumaotang) than the Communists.

Instead of joining with Japan to defeat the Maoist Communnists, Chang Kaishek oddly chose to form an alliance with the Communists against the Japanese. Surely no one in their right mind would say that China was better off under the Communists than Manchuria had been under the Japanese.

The Japanese were looting the shit out of Manchuria and even their puppets there were sick of it. Yes, the Japanese were the bad guys. Anyone who allied with them was seen as a traitor.

The Japanese did attempt to set up a puppet government in China as well... it was not well-received.

The reality is, the Communists were seen as the better alternative by most Chinese during and after the war.

Actually, that is total hogwash. The Japanese were nothing like the Nazis. Tojo was a mild leader compared to Hitler and Stalin. The Japanese people enjoyed far more rights and freedoms during WW II than did the Russians under Stalin and the Germans under Hitler.

The Japanese slaughtered 30 million Chinese during the war. Yes, they were just as bad as the Nazis.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.

We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki.

We had the bomb...the war was over

A less lethal demo had no downside
Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing.

Japan loses either way

Again you show your ignorance.....we were running out of time.
Weather was a consideration......as was a movement in Washington to try to delay or prevent the next bombing....waiting a week would prolong the war. Waiting even longer would have possibly made the second bombing much more difficult because of weather and the possibility that that air defenses would have been improved making it outright impossible. We were only able to drop those bombs because of the element of surprise. One aircraft wasn't considered a threat. Now everything would be considered a threat. Waiting would have made the next bombing mission next to impossible.

How many lives were saved is something you totally want to ignore because you're bent demonizing America.

 

[JoeB131]

The Soviets did not have the time to execute an invasion of that magnitude

We had the bomb. Japan’s days were numbered

We had other options than giving Japan two days to decide and killing 150,000 civilians

You should really read up on their invasion of Manchuria. They rolled the place up so quickly the puppet government didn't even have a chance to escape.

They had over 100 Division lined up... By October, they'd have been in Japan proper while we were still slogging on the beaches. Hokkaido was completely undefended.

 

[rightwinger]

It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.

The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.

Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.

The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.

If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.

That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.

It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb

 

[mikegriffith1]

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.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?

To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.

Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

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. (USSBS 26)​

 

[rightwinger]

The Soviets did not have the time to execute an invasion of that magnitude

We had the bomb. Japan’s days were numbered

We had other options than giving Japan two days to decide and killing 150,000 civilians

You should really read up on their invasion of Manchuria. They rolled the place up so quickly the puppet government didn't even have a chance to escape.

They had over 100 Division lined up... By October, they'd have been in Japan proper while we were still slogging on the beaches. Hokkaido was completely undefended.

Irrelevant
The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily. They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight.

We are talking about a few weeks to allow Japan to decide. We could have bombed them any time.

 

[elektra]

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.

Can you name that battle you refer to, USSR against Japan? I am thinking it never happened.

Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs

Only one problem, the emperor of Japan decided to surrender before the Soviets declared war and began this needless battle. The Japanese surrendered well over a week before this needless Soviet battle ended.

The USSR's entry into the war after it was over was insignificant compared to the power of atomic weapons.

 

[elektra]

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.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?

To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.

Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

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. (USSBS 26)​

Yet the last Japanese to surrender was in 1974, proving your post as being wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?

To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.

Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

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. (USSBS 26)​

Yet the last Japanese to surrender was in 1974, proving your post as being wrong.

One person does not make a war

Proving your post is ridiculous

 

[elektra]

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.

WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target

Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?

To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.

Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

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. (USSBS 26)​

And how about a link?

What we do know as fact, is Truman never said the Emperor must go and the emperor himself cited this as he surrendered.

Funny you dont mention the Army and Navy leaders who were vehemently opposed to surrender. They had tremendous power and were a difficult obstacle to overcome.

 

[elektra]

One person does not make a war

Proving your post is ridiculous

Thank you for confirming, that had we attacked the mainland of Japan The Japanese were not going to surrender.

It would of been a bitter terrible fight, for months. Millions dead.

 

[rightwinger]

One person does not make a war

Proving your post is ridiculous

Thank you for confirming, that had we attacked the mainland of Japan The Japanese were not going to surrender.

It would of been a bitter terrible fight, for months. Millions dead.

I’ve already said......
We had a bomb, an invasion was no longer necessary

The decision was not....Invade or drop the bomb

The decision was, what is the best way to use our new power?

 

[Maxdeath]

Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.

We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki

We had the bomb, nobody else did

At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
The Japanese knew we had tested one, when the other exploded over their homeland thay thought that we were out. Or perhaps they only hoped. I do not really know what they were thinking.
The war did not stop because we dropped the bomb at Hiroshima. Fighting was still going on. So exactly how many lives were you willing to sacrifice? Obviously some were willing to sacrifice less lives then you. Any idea how much those three bombs cost in today's dollars?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:

* Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.

* By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.

* By April 1945, the Japanese people were nearing the point of starvation. Their calorie intake was already well below the level needed to maintain basic health.

* By April 1945, we were bombing Japan at will and suffering virtually no aircraft losses in the process, because Japan was practically defenseless against air attack.

* Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.

* Yes, the Japanese focused more on the Nationalists than the Communists because the Nationalists, at that point, were much stronger and posed a greater threat, and because the Nationalists had decided to side with the Communists. So, *of course* the Japanese focused on the Nationalists, but they also fought the Communists.

* WEEKS before Hiroshima, we knew--we absolutely knew--from numerous Japanese intercepts and human sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, and even many senior military leaders, were willing to surrender if we would just clarify the "unconditional surrender" terms to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in such a surrender.

* Instead, Truman seemed intent on doing all he could to help the Japanese hardliners who were opposing surrender, at every single turn.

* The events surrounding Japan's surrender offer prove that if we had stipulated weeks earlier that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese moderates could have overcome the hardliners and enabled the emperor to order a surrender weeks earlier.

* Truth be told, we ignored the clear evidence that Japan was willing to surrender weeks earlier on acceptable terms because many folks in our government were determined to test the atomic bomb on live targets in Japan. That is the shameful truth.

 

[Maxdeath]

Um, except they did.
After the second bomb was dropped. Then you are forgetting those that stayed hidden on islands for years. A few for twenty or more years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Truman wanted to test to see which was more lethal: uranium bomb at ground level (Hiroshima) or plutonium bomb as an air burst (Nagasaki)

 

[rightwinger]

Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.

We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki

We had the bomb, nobody else did

At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
The Japanese knew we had tested one, when the other exploded over their homeland thay thought that we were out. Or perhaps they only hoped. I do not really know what they were thinking.
The war did not stop because we dropped the bomb at Hiroshima. Fighting was still going on. So exactly how many lives were you willing to sacrifice? Obviously some were willing to sacrifice less lives then you. Any idea how much those three bombs cost in today's dollars?

Nobody knew we had successfully tested the bomb
The war did not stop when we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima because we only gave them two days to decide.

We had three bombs. Japan had no idea how many we had.
As in was, we had more powerful bombs by early 1946.

We had nothing to lose by choosing a less lethal target than Hiroshima
If Japan was reluctant to surrender after a less lethal demonstration, we could have upped the ante

Once we had the bomb, we did not need to sacrifice any more lives. We drop a bomb and then step back and pressure Japan to surrender or face an escalation

Our ground troops were no longer involved

 

[Maxdeath]

Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.

We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki

We had the bomb, nobody else did

At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
The Japanese knew we had tested one, when the other exploded over their homeland thay thought that we were out. Or perhaps they only hoped. I do not really know what they were thinking.
The war did not stop because we dropped the bomb at Hiroshima. Fighting was still going on. So exactly how many lives were you willing to sacrifice? Obviously some were willing to sacrifice less lives then you. Any idea how much those three bombs cost in today's dollars?

Nobody knew we had successfully tested the bomb
The war did not stop when we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima because we only gave them two days to decide.

We had three bombs. Japan had no idea how many we had.
As in was, we had more powerful bombs by early 1946.

We had nothing to lose by choosing a less lethal target than Hiroshima
If Japan was reluctant to surrender after a less lethal demonstration, we could have upped the ante

Once we had the bomb, we did not need to sacrifice any more lives. We drop a bomb and then step back and pressure Japan to surrender or face an escalation

Our ground troops were no longer involved

Damn you really are crazy. You don't think anyone noticed the largest bomb test to have ever taken place? Even for you that is completely crazy.

And how long did it take after the second bomb was dropped? It sure wasn't months.

We had three. Japan was either hopping or convinced that we only had two. So they were wrong.

How pray tell do you pressure somone to surrender if you allow them to gain ground or hunker down in some small area of an island while giving them freedom to roam around. To most that looks like either cowardice or winning or both.

The reason we had more powerful bombs later on was we were not involved in a war. The tech had already been proved. Duh.

 

[rightwinger]

Um, except they did.
After the second bomb was dropped. Then you are forgetting those that stayed hidden on islands for years. A few for twenty or more years.

Who cares?

Had nothing to do with victory