What are the opinions of the different individuals and ideologies? Personally I would say I'm for it, it was the least abhorrent choice as it eliminated the need for an invasion of Japan. What are the rest of the boards thoughts?

Truman and co knew that Japan was weak and would surrender in a matter of time. They just wanted to demonstrate their nuclear might to the world. The estimates of "hundreds of thousands" of American casualties (what about japanese ones?) that would be incurred from a beach invasion were exaggerated.

The second bomb on Nagasaki was definitely uncalled for though. I mean, you just used a new weapon of mass destruction on a city full of civilians, and you're expecting an unconditional surrender within 2 days? They don't even have a chance to understand what's happening or work out the politics behind the scenes, and then Americans drop a second a-bomb.

Rise like Lions is right to say the bomb was used as a demonstration of US power - not so much to Japan but to Russia which was now seen as a greater threat. if anything the bombing prolonged the war because the US did not want the japanese to surrender before they could use it. A true expression of barbarism, as argued in he article linked here:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/286_1945.html

It was one of the most horrible crimes in human history.

The Japanese knew where the Americans would land the geography of Kyshu told them, their forces on Kyshu at least matched those of the US landing forces and they had around 5000 kamikaze craft with which they would use to devastate the US fleets and landings.

The Americans on the other hand where by this point where preparing to cut off Hokkaido through bombardment of shipping lanes, which the rest of Japan was reliant on for food at this point. The Soviets were also planning to invade siad island which would have cut it off permanently. This would have led to a rice famine which could have potentially killed millions, forgetting the casualites from fighting which would also have exceeded the million mark. The Americans were also preparing to use gas on Japanese crops and hold outs.

With all th9is in mind it was the least abhorrent choice.

Yet it ended the war, surely that should be taken into consideration?

Was there a need for the invasion of Japan? The Joint Chiefs of Staff were still debating the necessity of a land invasion when Truman decided to use the bomb. As Rise Like Lions noted, the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

After the bombing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

The various figures of lives saved ranged from "a half million lives" (Truman) to "a million lives" (Churchill) but the official projections made by the Invasion Planning Committee did not exceed 46,000.

Following the defeat of Japanese forces on Okinawa in May 1945 (the emperor ordered the Imperial Army to fight to the last man in an effort to secure more favorable surrender terms) the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."

In his book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Gar Alperovitz concluded that the bomb was seen as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. The British scientist P.M.S. Blackett, one of Churchill's advisers, wrote after the war that dropping the atomic bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."

Turning to the bombing of Nagasaki, Rise Like Lions reasonably asks, "I mean, you just used a new weapon of mass destruction on a city full of civilians, and you're expecting an unconditional surrender within 2 days? They don't even have a chance to understand what's happening or work out the politics behind the scenes, and then Americans drop a second a-bomb."

The answer is that the US didn't expect unconditional surrender within in two days and didn't care what was happening behind the scenes because the Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb and the bomb builders wanted an experimental test to compare with the uranium bomb used on Hiroshima. In short, the Nagasaki bomb was a straight out war crime.

I would like to point out that the US had already been firebombing Japan long before the nuke was even dropped. There's a nice video about this, but I can't post links yet.

Did it?

According to Japanese sources the declaration of war by the Soviet Union (with whom Foreign Minister Togo was hoping to negotiate a surrender while the USSR was still neutral) and the total defeat of the Kwangtung Army was at least as important and possibly more crucial in forcing Japan to surrender than the atomic bombings.

Reports from the time indicate the Japanese did not know how badly the situation in Manchuria was, whilst the Soviet declaration was definately significant I tend to lean on the side which says the Atomic bombs were instrumental. After all, it provided a nice get out clause for a military government. They could claim they were brought to surrender due to the supernatural forces of the atom not military defeat at the hands of the Red Army.

See Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa and sources cited there for a challenge to the traditionalist view. Downfall : The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank also questions the traditionalist interpretation.

The Japanese were shitting themselves in anticipation of the promised Soviet invasion of their northern islands, especially after what the Red Army had done to their forces in northern China. It seems to me quite likely that in the event of a dual invasion from the two most powerful countries on Earth Japan would have sued for peace. But the Truman admin wanted to force an unconditional surrender for political reasons, largely in order to have a buffer against the Soviets in Asia. I'm not inclined to see it as some tragic but noble utilitarian moral judgment, just politics in a war where both sides were quite comfortable with annihilating civilian populations.

And since I can now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmJDj-oLYyM

Read some collection of diaries called Tales from an Autumn of Emergences or something I forget. Anyhow, even the most die-hard imperialist citizens were openly questioning the idea of their state and dying under the yoke of desperate war production, rationing and heavy casualties civilian and military.

The bombs were flexing muscles. Nothing can justify all that poison and carnage we unleashed.

The only reason the government didn't surrender earlier is because they wanted a conditional surrender that would safeguard the government, especially the emperor, from executions and from becoming a slave colony for the Yankees. But, no, Truman wanted unconditional surrender on principle. And hey, in the end, they kept the emperor alive to shore up support for the new liberal state and promote cooperation with the occupying forces.

In the wake of a looming Soviet/Yankee invasion the government would surrender or the PEOPLE would. To think that the yellow hordes would go Banzai! down to the last man, woman and child and take out 1,000,000 US soldiers is racist propaganda of the worst kind. It's the same racist, "yellow hoard" mentality that justifies the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the depiction of the GPCR as one idiotic hive destroying itself.

The Red's opinion on this matter staying wholly the same in the face our arguments is a tad disturbing.

Absolutely right. Foreign Minister Togo sent Ambassador Sato to the USSR to seek Soviet intervention for a negociated peace as mentioned earlier. Togo sent a telegram to Sato after he arrived in Moscow that read, "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war." The US knew the contents of the telegram since it had the decryption key since 1942, so the State Dept. and the War Dept. knew that the only thing holding back a Japanese surrender was a guarantee to retain the Emperor. Joseph Grew (who had been US Ambassador to Japan) led a segment of State Dept. "wise men" who believed that allowing Japan to keep the Emperor would bring about a Japanese surrender.

Hmm, good points. (by the way: It's Tojo or To-jo- with macrons on top)

This sorta seems like one of those topics that is pointless to debate about.

Cause, you know, it already happened and shit.

If this example of good old fashioned American warmongering wasn't bad enough, the underlying tension from their use will not disappear until Capitalism is dissolved completely and all nuclear weapons are destroyed.

Since we've got enough atomic weapons to destroy the Earth quite a few times in the hands of countries so hostile to each other that it warranted the creation and continued relevance of a fucking Doomsday Clock...well, I honestly think that the tragedy of the atomic bombings of Hiroshiman and Nagasaki are really just the tip of the iceberg.

This topic has been well discussed in previous threads. I suggest that the OP search and read. The claims that atomic bombing "saved lives" or "ended the war" were inventions after the fact. The "saving lives" claim in particular was invented years after the fact. At the time, aerial bombardment of cities was denounced as "baby killers."

Incineration of human beings is causing death. Causing death is not "saving lives." The claim is false on its face. I suggest that the OP be more critical of war propaganda.

I can't really buy the whole "Japan was going to give up," especially not to unconditional surrender. After fighting tooth and nail over every square inch of Okinawa it wouldn't make sense.

Secondly, after the US had already fire-bombed many (50+) Japanese cites, the Allies issues the potsdam decleration, which set an ultimatum for Japan to surrender and declared that if they did not, they would face "prompt and utter destruction."

Now, whether the decleration was meant to be agreed to or not is debatable, but either way Japan would have been destroyed. Napalm was really coming into vogue and the idea of millions of US Army/Marines and Soviets raping their way across Japan is perhaps more unsettling.

Don't get me wrong. Of course Truman was sending a message to the Soviets by dropping the bombs.