Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified?

No, I'm not ignoring that. I took into consideration the projections that an invasion may have resulted in more deaths than strategic nukes. See:

quote:

---

one might conclude that an invasion might have been worse for civilians than two nuclear bombs dropping on them, but if doing neither results in less lives lost and the goal of Japanese surrender - it seems a pertinent point in a moral discussion as to what course of action the US should have taken.

---

In fact, most of my post was about this very fact. So, no, I'm not acting like what happened earlier in the war didn't happen. I'm wondering how you managed to make this error.

No I haven't. Here is what I have actually said

quote:

---

My view is that if the defence for murdering hundreds of thousands of people is that it was for the greater good, the evidence supporting that assertion needs to be cast iron. As far as I can tell, the evidence might support the notion, but not sufficiently to justify the action.

---

quote:

---

We know what would happen if the bombs were dropped: huge civilian deaths. I am just saying the justification for doing that had better be cast iron, and I don't think it was.

---

quote:

---

My original point was that the evidence to support this claim was not sufficiently strong to guarantee the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

---

And so on. There is evidence that an invasion, in the absence of surrender from the Emperor, would have caused death tolls comparable to dropping the atomic bombs. But my view is that there is sufficient doubt over the Japanese's continued commitment to the war and that they were looking for an exit strategy and that therefore a bloody invasion or strategic nuking would both have been premature actions. The plus side to an invasion is that an invasion isn't quite so instant mass-deaths, giving the Emperor opportunity to surrender before hundreds of thousands had died. No.

There's no need to be an arse. I don't remember making that claim. Maybe you should try dealing with the position I am actually taking. Let me post it again

quote:

---

But my view is that there is sufficient doubt over the Japanese's continued commitment to the war and that they were looking for an exit strategy and that therefore a bloody invasion or strategic nuking would both have been premature actions.

---

Do you have any evidence that the only way to get Japan to surrender was to drop two nuclear bombs on cities OR a bloody total war style invasion?

Hi Rahvin,
I think it worth pointing out, in case it had gone unnoticed, that my view is 'unstudied'. If you want to get into the nitty gritty details I point you back at dronester who has done a better job than I at defending the notion that the Japanese were on the brink of surrender and that two nuclear weapons might have been overkill towards attaining that goal.My view is that we had best be very very certain that surrender was not going to occur without the need to drop nuclear bombs, and it seems there is sufficient evidence that a surrender might have been on the cards to justify holding off on the nuking. Again, I refer you to dronester who has provided more than I can as far as supporting that notion.Is it your view that there is absolutely no evidence supporting the notion that the Japanese were considering surrender? I appreciate that earlier in the war they were not acting like surrender was an option.I suppose evidence to change my mind would not be evidence that the Japanese had previously been loathe to surrender, but that the rumblings of surrender that do seem to be evidenced are somehow in error. And even then, I cannot comprehend what the case might have to be to justify nuking two cities within days of each other.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I am not free of insight into the possibility of a tough invasion, with high casualty rates. Are you seriously suggesting that the only two options were to engage in total war invasion or strategic nuclear bombs?

OK. So have I been misled about the offers of conditional surrender made in January 1945? If Japan did make such an offer would it change your mind? You won't find me scrabbling to defend the firebombing of Dresden or the London Blitz, let's put it like that.

So instead of some of them starving we should definitely vapourise them? Followed by some of them still starving, since the atomic bombs didn't fix Japan's logistical problems. So their capacity to make war was seriously hampered. Does it not make you wonder what the rush was and why the answer was to strategically nuke two specific heavily populated areas? It's unstudied in the sense I have not studied battlefield casualty projection science, the socio-economic situation of Japan and all those niggly things one should be aware of when making the moral decision to murder hundreds of thousands of people.And I'm not entirely confident in the capacity for anyone to have the right level of information to justify it.The Japanese killing themselves rather than surrender is a different moral situation than killing so many civillians that they surrender. Didn't they make an offer in January?

Wikipedia suggests something was presented.

quote:

---

By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[23] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of handthe proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; whereas at this time the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[24] Additionally, these proposals were strongly opposed by the powerful military members of the Japanese government.[25]

---

Though I concede the Emperor may not have immediately accepted even if the US said it considered the terms acceptable.

quote:

---

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.

---

Foreign minister Tōgō, July. Also in July

quote:

---

With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms

---

Of course, there were other voices less so inclined. If the terms at Potsdam had given details over the fate of the Emperor, the peacemakers might have succeeded in their case.But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me.

No. I'm merely suggesting that we be sure before strategic nuking takes place. I don't feel like essentially being called intellectually dishonest every other time I post, so I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me from further discussion.