We Were Right to Drop the Bomb

[Toro]

I tend to agree. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives, including many Americans.

The headline of this column is lifted from a 1981 essay by the late Paul Fussell, the cultural critic and war memoirist. In 1945 Fussell was a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the U.S. Army who had fought his way through Europe only to learn that he would soon be shipped to the Pacific to take part in Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands scheduled to begin in November 1945.

Then the atom bomb intervened. Japan would not surrender after Hiroshima, but it did after Nagasaki.

I brought Fussell’s essay with me on my flight to Hiroshima and was stopped by this: “When we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live.”

In all the cant that will pour forth this week to mark the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bombs—that the U.S. owes the victims of the bombings an apology; that nuclear weapons ought to be abolished; that Hiroshima is a monument to man’s inhumanity to man; that Japan could have been defeated in a slightly nicer way—I doubt much will be made of Fussell’s fundamental point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t just terrible war-ending events. They were also lifesaving. The bomb turned the empire of the sun into a nation of peace activists.​

Thank God for the Atom Bomb - WSJ

What are your thoughts?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, it ended the war which could have dragged on for a lot longer. People also forget it wasn't just us researching the bomb. They were doing it too. Someone was going to drop it. Better us on one of their cities than them on one of ours.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I tend to agree. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives, including many Americans.

The headline of this column is lifted from a 1981 essay by the late Paul Fussell, the cultural critic and war memoirist. In 1945 Fussell was a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the U.S. Army who had fought his way through Europe only to learn that he would soon be shipped to the Pacific to take part in Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands scheduled to begin in November 1945.

Then the atom bomb intervened. Japan would not surrender after Hiroshima, but it did after Nagasaki.

I brought Fussell’s essay with me on my flight to Hiroshima and was stopped by this: “When we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live.”

In all the cant that will pour forth this week to mark the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bombs—that the U.S. owes the victims of the bombings an apology; that nuclear weapons ought to be abolished; that Hiroshima is a monument to man’s inhumanity to man; that Japan could have been defeated in a slightly nicer way—I doubt much will be made of Fussell’s fundamental point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t just terrible war-ending events. They were also lifesaving. The bomb turned the empire of the sun into a nation of peace activists.​

Thank God for the Atom Bomb - WSJ

What are your thoughts?

YES ... definitely YES .......... and, we should've done the same in the Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Many of our soldiers would be alive today. We would've save multi-$Billions, and ended the wars in days instead of years.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think also the fear was the Nazis had made progress and were in bed with the Japanese. They were determined to fight to the last man too so as bad as it was it did shorten the war.

 

[Unkotare]

we should've done the same in the Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. .....

It's OK to stop and think for a second before posting, you know.

 

[Sonny Clark]

we should've done the same in the Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. .....

It's OK to stop and think for a second before posting, you know.

Yes, I agree. And, I did think before I posted it.

 

[there4eyeM]

The idea that it saved countless American lives is based on the assumption that invasion was necessary. It was not.
That others were 'working on the bomb' is ludicrous as we know no one else was even close.
The only lives that were saved, ironically, were Japanese. Since the suicidally maniacal 'leaders' refused to surrender even in the face of certain defeat, many people would have died of starvation, likely even more than died from the two bombs, before the inevitable finally did come and the white flags went up, as they would have had to.
The Japanese did not have time to appreciate what had happened after Hiroshima. Nagasaki was totally unnecessary. It is a terrible thing that America has to live with the onus of having been the first to use the bomb, especially as it did not win the war, though it did end it a bit sooner. That was part of the goal, to settle things before Joe Stalin took even more territory in the East. Arguably, he is the reason the bomb was used at all; i.e., to announce we had it and to demonstrate we would use it.
Harry Truman was not prepared to be President, and certainly not prepared for the post-war geo-political situation. Perhaps no one really was. Roosevelt did a very poor job at the end and was irresponsible in not better training Harry, who should have been at his side at the last meetings with world leaders.
Things could and should have been much better.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, it ended the war which could have dragged on for a lot longer. People also forget it was just us researching the bomb. They were doing it too. Someone was going to drop it. Better us on one of their cities than them on one of ours.

It also prevented the Soviets from getting in on the invasion and occupation.

Imagine a Cold War with a "North and South Japan".

 

[browsing deer]

I tend to agree. My father was one of those preparing to attack the home islands in the summer of 45, so I have no problem dropping the bomb on japan. I would not be here otherwise. Iwo Jima and Taiwan let us know what to expect.

That said, I am of the opinion that doing the reasearch was a total waste. 1/4 of industrial output in 1944-45 was focused on the bomb, I feel we could have won the war sooner if we had focused on convenional means. being ignorent of it longer would have been a lot better. The bomb reqired brainpower to build it, but that brainpower was easily fungible. Stalin knew more about the bomb than Truman, and beause of the spies he got it in short order. No bomb means no spies getting the bomb. and no terror weapons for a substantial time afterwards.

I believe we could have finished of hitler by november of 44 if we had focused our resources better

 

[Muhammed]

I don't think we should have provoked Japan and Germany in the first place. That horrific war was easily avoidable.

 

[Correll]

not just yes, but hell yes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

YES ... definitely YES .......... and, we should've done the same in the Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Many of our soldiers would be alive today. We would've save multi-$Billions, and ended the wars in days instead of years.

We had no business being in Vietnam or Iraq in the first place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This "The idea that it saved countless American lives is based on the assumption that invasion was necessary. It was not." is flatly incorrect.

Classified documents released in the last ten years of the planning recognized the growing difficulty of establishing a beach head, then a bridge head, and then operations without taking and causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.

All of the evidence taken together makes it quite clear the Empire was not willing to surrender without maintaining its conquered territories, and many of the higher leaders of the Empire was willing to make its homeland a charnel heap.

Any individual or group that says nay simply does know the evidence.

 

[regent]

Most of the Japanese leadership knew Japan could not win the war. If that is true what then was Japan's strategy, and how would that strategy fit into operation Olympic and Coronet, and finally the A bomb?

 

[westwall]

The idea that it saved countless American lives is based on the assumption that invasion was necessary. It was not.
That others were 'working on the bomb' is ludicrous as we know no one else was even close.
The only lives that were saved, ironically, were Japanese. Since the suicidally maniacal 'leaders' refused to surrender even in the face of certain defeat, many people would have died of starvation, likely even more than died from the two bombs, before the inevitable finally did come and the white flags went up, as they would have had to.
The Japanese did not have time to appreciate what had happened after Hiroshima. Nagasaki was totally unnecessary. It is a terrible thing that America has to live with the onus of having been the first to use the bomb, especially as it did not win the war, though it did end it a bit sooner. That was part of the goal, to settle things before Joe Stalin took even more territory in the East. Arguably, he is the reason the bomb was used at all; i.e., to announce we had it and to demonstrate we would use it.
Harry Truman was not prepared to be President, and certainly not prepared for the post-war geo-political situation. Perhaps no one really was. Roosevelt did a very poor job at the end and was irresponsible in not better training Harry, who should have been at his side at the last meetings with world leaders.
Things could and should have been much better.

With 20/20 hindsight we know. At the time we didn't. Your other points have merit especially the numbers of Japanese lives that were saved. They would have died in their millions and the ruling elite expected that of them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Funny how the thought of killing 200000 people (mostly civilians) was once deemed a sound strategy

 

[martybegan]

Most of the Japanese leadership knew Japan could not win the war. If that is true what then was Japan's strategy, and how would that strategy fit into operation Olympic and Coronet, and finally the A bomb?

They were aiming for a draw, basically smash the invasion beachhead, and hope the Allies would negotiate.

 

[martybegan]

Funny how the thought of killing 200000 people (mostly civilians) was once deemed a sound strategy

At least in those cases the wars ended, instead of the slow bleed we see now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Funny how the thought of killing 200000 people (mostly civilians) was once deemed a sound strategy

At least in those cases the wars ended, instead of the slow bleed we see now.

Since there have been no official declarations of war you can say we haven't fought any wars since WWII

 

[there4eyeM]

Allocating the resources differently is interesting, but it isn't clear that more of what was being produced could have been applied effectively. US submarines were isolating the Japanese home islands. Bombing their cities was not much more than some kind of revenge, since without imports Japanese cannot survive. In general, 'strategic' or 'carpet bombing' did little more than increase the death toll of the war. It didn't stop England, it didn't stop Germany and it didn't stop Japan. Later, it didn't stop North Vietnam, though more tons were dropped there than on the Nazis.
Turning tens of thousands of civilians to cinders in seconds is profoundly sad. Throwing around statements about using nuclear weapons as if they were some kind of neat, clean easy solution is disquieting to hear.