Did Harry S. Truman make the right decision when he dropped two nukes

[DogOnPorch]

Riverwind, your view is simplistic and protective of the emperor. Japan offered unconditional surrender after the second bomb.

Yet, even after the 2nd A-Bomb, Japanese pilots...IJN pilots in particular...were still engaging US aircraft over the skies of Japan. Saburo Sakai's famous book (w/ Martin Caidin) "Samurai" details these various post-surrender combats.

----------------------------------------

I pray every day for the souls of my enemies as well as my comrades...

---Saburo Sakai: 60+ kills

[GostHacked]

What are you yammerin' about now? Truman did not issue Executive Order 9066...it was FDR's joint.

Hmm you are right, FDR did issue it. Truman just carried it on.

I guess even the ones in Canada were Truman's too 'cause Canada only does bad things when the evil 'merkins make them.

YAY CANADA !!!!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=merkin

But back to the topic at hand ... if you can, BC. I actually challenge you to get the topic back on track.

[Wild Bill]

As an aside I think this issue is distorted a bit because of our psychological reaction to the nuclear bomb.

Here is what I mean. What is worse-dropping one atom bomb, or doing the exact same damage but over a longer period of time and with more bombs say like what the fire bombings of Dresden did or the bombing of London.

These bombardments seem to be classified in our minds as being different but are they? Whether we kill the same amount of people in one day or 6 months, is the final result not the same?

Isn't the intent of these bombings a psychological one, i.e., to terrorize the civilians to cause their governments to capitulate?

Psychological terror can be the primary purpose of bombings as it was in Afghanistan or it can be done for very specific strategic reasons (taking out a nuclear plant in Syria, Iraq or a bridge or a supply depot) and sometimes both.

I think where we get a bit hung up is not with the bombings themselves but with our psychological reaction to them.

I think most people if they think bombings are precise and pin point and kill as few people as possible, find them more psychologically acceptable then if they cause wide spread indiscriminate killing of civilians.

So for example, when the US first tried to bomb Vietnam into submission, because Americans did not see any civilians dying in the news it didn't illicit a negative reaction. If you remember the negative reaction only started in response to napalm being dropped on civilians and people watching on t.v. a naked little girl running and her skin falling off.

People found what Israel did in Lebanon outragerous precisely because they saw pictures of apartments (civilian not military) installations taken down suggesting civilians were unecessarily killed. The reality is had Israel chosen instead to keep its bombing more discriminate, i.e., limit it to missiles from heliocopters to specific targets, they would not have lost the media war. Hezbollah knew this and this is why precisely why it and every terrorist willl shoot its missles from a civilian's home. They want the response to kill civilians and create psychological outrage at the person trying to defend themselves against the missile. Its a classic case of manipulating the media and message and turning the attacker into the victim by manipulating the consequences of bombings.

Terrorists do not engage in conventional warfare so they are not visible and isolated from civilians making taking them out impossible without killing innocent civilians which is precisely the point of their tactics.

If the PLO or Hezbollah or Hamas engaged in a conventional war, they would be quickly subdued and blown away and no one would fret. Its only because civilians die suddenly there are oturaged moralists decrying the consequence of war.

We seem to accept the fact that soldiers can die but civilians should not.

Interestingly when Israel tries to show films and videos of missiles coming into Israel the response is its not relevant unless we can see a dead civilian, even then people then turn it into a pissing match and say the side with the most dead civilians is more righteous.

The psychological conflicts and contradictions we have when we define and try understand bombings all flows from our primal reaction to mutilated bodies. If we see mutilated bodies, we become upset. If we don't see mutilated bodies because no one is around, they are simply ash it also is easier to assimilate.

I think on a subconscious level the a-bomb was designed as a way to speeden up bombings and get to the final consequence faster and in a manner designed to overwhelmingly obliterate physically so as to fend off retaliation.

I do think the US military did not properly anticipate the reaction of its own people. I think it had a myopic focus on how it would be perceieved by Tojo and the Japanese government and whether it would and could intimidate them. I do not think they gave too much thought to the reaction ti might cause in Americans or other world citizens or for that matter Japanese civilians.

I think what we saw was a strategy focused on psychological coercion of the Japanese government.

I don't think anyone was prepared for the actual visions that then transpired. There is a tendency when planning mass death to be removed from its actual consequences and see it in antiseptic terms., i.e., it would simply obliterate in one clean sudden bang and the suddeness of it would force the Japanese decision maker's hand.

I really do not think the US was focused on what the vision of those who survived years later, or days later, or months later, would be just as I do not think they dwelled on such visions when Iraq's entire infrastructure was erased or it engaged in the huge blasts it did in Afghanistan which were far more powerful then the a bombs but no one frets over because there was no nuclear fall out or thousands or millions killed in one explosion to be beemed back on the news. It was simply terrorists (non humans anyways) being sent to hell.

So in summary my answer is no I do not question what Truman did. I think the fact the bombs were a-bombs and caused such horror is irrelevant to the question-the question is this-if Truman felt that using such a device in his mind based on the best of his abilities and knowledge would result in the long term in less suffering and deaths then carrying out prolonged bombings, then for me that is his justification and I would not judge it uniquely because on one level any killing or bombing or war is morally wrong, but on another level decisions are made during war that seem immoral but are designed to prevent more deaths and if they succeed in doing that, if less people die over the longer term then there is to me cause and effect that can be rationalized since less lives die and although I am loath to define morality by how many people die, with such questions where the construct or question posed assumes war is a given, then I look at it purely from the perspective of what causes the least amount of deaths of civilians and/or soldiers.

I think far more people would have died both civilian and soldier had these bombs not forced the issue.

Geez, more clear thinking! Don't ever try to debate over at "rubble.ca", Rue. Their brains would melt from trying to follow you or more likely they'd call you a lot of very bad names and then throw you out!

Some folks give us Moody Blues and others give us Bobby Sherman. Thanks for feeding this old hippy's head!

[Peter F]

I cannot agree with the rationalizations here. 10s of thousands of civilians, of all ages, were deliberately massacred. That, as Curtis LeMay alluded, was a war crime. It was a deliberate murder of civilians in order to convince the enemy to surrender. Supposedly it saved a zillion lives and was a good thing.

There was no necessecity for invasion. There was no need for risking 10's of thousands of troops in an invasion. Thus no need for dropping A-bombs or even just firebombing what was left.

It was a war crime. Not the worst of that war by any means...

[bush_cheney2004]

I cannot agree with the rationalizations here. 10s of thousands of civilians, of all ages, were deliberately massacred. That, as Curtis LeMay alluded, was a war crime. It was a deliberate murder of civilians in order to convince the enemy to surrender. Supposedly it saved a zillion lives and was a good thing.

Then why did we build them....for the Smithsonian?

There was no necessecity for invasion. There was no need for risking 10's of thousands of troops in an invasion. Thus no need for dropping A-bombs or even just firebombing what was left.

So you give your moral blessing to firebombing civilians prior to this? Far more were killed you know.

It was a war crime. Not the worst of that war by any means...

Yes, let them all take a number and wait in line for trials by those who benefitted and now pass judgement. Now we can legally kill the civilains before they are even born.

Edited August 24, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Peter F]

Then why did we build them....for the Smithsonian?

Best place for them. As you know, the Allies built them out of fear the Germans would build them. If the Germans built them and the allies didn't there'd be big trouble then. But, like nerve agents, If the allies had the weapon too then there'd actually be a deterrent. As it turned out, deterence didn't enter the picture in August 1945 because the Japanese didn't have nukes. So the allies used what nukes they had to thier hearts content...and thus the war crime.

So you give your moral blessing to firebombing civilians prior to this? Far more were killed you know.

No I do not give my moral blessing to firebombings or any other form of 'area' bombing. Those too are war crimes.

Yes, let them all take a number and wait in line for trials by those who benefitted and now pass judgement. Now we can legally kill the civilains before they are even born.

Hey, people can legally kill people under all sorts of circumstances.

But thats got nothing to do with war crimes.

[bush_cheney2004]

Best place for them. As you know, the Allies built them out of fear the Germans would build them. If the Germans built them and the allies didn't there'd be big trouble then. But, like nerve agents, If the allies had the weapon too then there'd actually be a deterrent. As it turned out, deterence didn't enter the picture in August 1945 because the Japanese didn't have nukes. So the allies used what nukes they had to thier hearts content...and thus the war crime.

The Americans would have built them anyway.

No I do not give my moral blessing to firebombings or any other form of 'area' bombing. Those too are war crimes.

Well Krikey...everything is a war crime to you then...sheeeesh! Even broken fingernails.

Hey, people can legally kill people under all sorts of circumstances.

But thats got nothing to do with war crimes.

Actually, it has everything to do with war crimes and legality. That's why yours is an empty claim.

[HisSelf]

There were a number of island military outposts the Japanese held at the time these bombs had dropped. I think Truman should have dropped his first bomb on one of these - a little remote from Japan's civilian population. I think he should have then demanded surrender. If none were forthcoming, then he should have dropped another closer to Japan, but still on an island which was mostly a military holding. He should then have demanded surrender and told the Japanese that the next bomb would be on the mainland.

To be charitable to Truman, I doubt he had an accurate mental image of what these weapons would do. After all, nobody had ever used them before.

His decision may well have been infomed by the bombing of Dresden only 6 months before, a truly dreadful event desribed very well by Kurt Vonnegut who saw it first hand.

Truman was not a very smart guy. He got the job done, but he was merely a bureacrat and may have very well been why Eisenhower warned us all about the military industrial complex..

[Oleg Bach]

Trueman's response was NORMAL in so far a nuking - put it this way - Human nature or the worst uncontrolable parts of this nature came into play..of course nuking is totally immoral..BUT.. We are talking an industrial society -imagine - you spend years developing the perfect shot gun...billions invested - You take the gun to the vanquished enemy ...you put him and his whole family against the wall - the war is actually over and done - but you have this urge to see it the gun works...so you fire that damn thing...as the experts take notes - what the hell..Japan was cruel during the conflit and I suppose they felt justified in a sweet little way...Trueman and his friends wanted to punish a beaten foe out of sheer spite and to set up a reputation that America is the super power - this was the begining....and now it's just a bluff game...no - this president should have dropped it over an uninhabited are and that would have been terror enough - but - wealthy powerful men like to get their kicks.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Trueman and his friends wanted to punish a beaten foe out of sheer spite and to set up a reputation that America is the super power - this was the begining....and now it's just a bluff game...no - this president should have dropped it over an uninhabited are and that would have been terror enough - but - wealthy powerful men like to get their kicks.

Ummm...OK...but it sure as hell worked. President Truman did his job....and Japan surrendered. The body count is secondary in the overall assessment of "brutality" during WW2. Hell, America (and others) are quite prepared to do the exact same thing on a much larger scale with thermonuclear weapons, not those tiny WW2 party poppers.

Edited August 25, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Ummm...OK...but it sure as hell worked. President Truman did his job....and Japan surrendered. The body count is secondary in the overall assessment of "brutality" during WW2. Hell, America (and others) are quite prepared to do the exact same thing on a much larger scale with thermonuclear weapons, not those tiny WW2 party poppers.

Japan was days away from giving up the ghost and surrendering dispite the bomb. It has always reminded me of spraying a helpless beehive with insecticide..the bees may be a tad dangerous but they do not have a chance once infected by a droplet of chemical. The up side to neclear weapons is that good is more powerful than evil - and in the last 50 years we have proven beyound that shadow of a doubt that good is the superiour force and presiding ruler of humanity...the proof is that we are still here...for those that toy with the idea of melting sections of the planet to amuze themselves - well - they should shut up - evil and stupidy are kin....BUT sometimes you must destroy a monster that you create - China is a monster that we have made and now it's to late to nuke them - they nuke us with pollution and bad land fill product - not to mention drugs - Over 20 million dozes of brain drying Ecstacy was found at a Montreal port two years ago..it originated in China - there was a small news bleep and the story died - we should have protested the poisoning of our young by China - but we did not - as their young leadership was destroyed by the Greedy British with opium - they are now destroy ours - wait until they start shipping cocaine at walmart prices..they along with Japan will have their revenge - these cultures have long memories and have not forgotten being burned..and doped.

[Rue]

Geez, more clear thinking! Don't ever try to debate over at "rubble.ca", Rue. Their brains would melt from trying to follow you or more likely they'd call you a lot of very bad names and then throw you out!

Some folks give us Moody Blues and others give us Bobby Sherman. Thanks for feeding this old hippy's head!

Lol. Bobby Sherman. That is just wrong man. I mean you want to seriously put someone in the hospital have them find music by Bobby Sherman and make them listen to it after smoking one of those modern marijihuana joints with all that concentrated toxic stuff the kids smoke these days.

What these youngsters need are some Yardbirds and Janis to set them straight.

[cybercoma]

The idea of playing politics with the lives of innocent civilians disgusts me. It's a reality, I'll admit, but a very sad one that should make us all horrified with ourselves as humanity.

[bush_cheney2004]

The idea of playing politics with the lives of innocent civilians disgusts me. It's a reality, I'll admit, but a very sad one that should make us all horrified with ourselves as humanity.

There is no such thing as an innocent civilian. Let them all be "horrified".

Edited September 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

There is no such thing as an innocent civilian. Let them all be "horrified".

There used to be. The people used to go out and watch from the sidelines of the battlefields. They were safe then.

The armies were mercenary for the most part and hired to fight each other. They didn't bother with civilians.

The King was fully responsible for any wars back then. Today we have democracies and representative governments

so the people must blame themselves, even though it is their governments that lead them there. I suppose your statement is right. Besides the quickest way to end a war is to utterly crush the enemy instead of pussyfooting around about war crimes and human rights.

Governments should be about keeping the peace and if they don't people should bring it down. The only problem, well there may be another one but I don't see it, with that idea is that every nation has to agree to do the same.

[Rue]

The idea of playing politics with the lives of innocent civilians disgusts me. It's a reality, I'll admit, but a very sad one that should make us all horrified with ourselves as humanity.

It goes on daily. That is precisely what terrorists depend on as there primary tactic-getting civilians killed. It has also been used by conventional military leaders ordered by their politicians since war began. It is the most common theme of history.

[Rue]

There is no such thing as an innocent civilian. Let them all be "horrified".

Such comments I find nonsensical. To suggest the people of Cambodia, or Rwanada-Burundi, or the Ukraine, or the holocaust, or Biafra, or India-Pakistan, or Biafra, or Armenia, and on and on were not innocent I find impossible to accept. To suggest civilians are not caught in wars they did not create and have no power to end is bullshit and it shows you have no clue just why it is terrorists can exploit civilians or why politicians will slaughter them.

You sounded just like Charlie Manson, Idi Amin, Robert Mgabe, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Mao Tse Tung all rolled into one.

[cybercoma]

It goes on daily. That is precisely what terrorists depend on as there primary tactic-getting civilians killed. It has also been used by conventional military leaders ordered by their politicians since war began. It is the most common theme of history.

I agree, but to take it a step further, the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no better than terrorist attacks. Both of them are politically motivated attacks on innocent civilians, neither of which I find acceptable.

[Peter F]

“You might as well talk of humanizing hell! War is the essence of violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.”

- Admiral Jackie Fisher RN, at the time of the 1907 Hague Convention

Edited September 26, 2008 by Peter F

[the janitor]

There is no such thing as an innocent civilian. Let them all be "horrified".

Yes there are -- children.

Strategic bombing in Dresden for example did nothing. Production actually increased, but there were still children killed. Besides, the allies screwed up and hit the residential areas and completely missed some of the factories. John Kenneth Galbraith discusses the Dresden bombings extensively.

Soldiers lives, on the other hand, aren't worth crap in a war. Even if Japan hadn't surrendered without an invasion, better dead soldiers than dead kids. There is the possiblility many children would've died during an allied invasion of Japan, but the numbers are hypothetical since it never happened. Besides, the United States didn't have to drop the bomb on a populated area anyway, and this is where the culpability lies.

If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing more than a show of testosterone vis a vis the USSR, then it proves the bomb wasn't needed to win the war.

Either way, it was a decision the US holds the sole responsiblility for, not the allies. The rest of the world is clear of any ethical or moral wrongdoing where the A-bomb was concerned.

[the janitor]

Canada doesn't need me for "blame" it has already earned, and in some cases, apologized for.

No, but you're always crapping all over Canada like an insecure little kid. Maybe Americans don't spend much time thinking about Canada, but you sure as hell do. Somehow you need to justify the fact that you're not Canadian.

You keep going on about how insignificant Canada is in the world scheme of things but then you're always ticked off about some aspect of it like some sort of schizophrenic. Just move here already instead of always nattering on about how screwed up you think Canada is. You'll be happier and I'm sure we can squeeze in one more somewhere...the high arctic perhaps.

Edited September 26, 2008 by the janitor

[jbg]

Harry S. Truman, on August 6th, 1945, signed a document that authorized the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima after the Japanese failed to respond to his offer of a peace treaty to end the war. There is much debate as to whether or not the Japanese intended to surrender before the bombs were even dropped, and top military strategists back then (General Eisenhower, and General MacArthur) have been planning a land invasion of Japan, and many say that upwards of at least 1.5 million more soldiers and Japanese citizens could be killed.

Three days after the Hiroshima bombing, Japan still did not surrender, so Truman sent another nuclear bomb, this time to Nagasaki, and 6 days after that bombing, Emperor Hirohito finally agreed to rasie the white flag, after the deaths of 200,000 Japanese citizens in the two seperate bombings.

Do you think Harry Truman made the right decision when he used nuclear weapons on Japan?

Unequivocally yes. There was certainly the issue of likely mass allied casualties. I am also quite certain that the Japanese losses would have been far greater than the 200,000 killed in the bombings.

There's another issue. Peace movements tend to develop when wars drag on. Lets face it. Even then, people didn't like the draft, the rationing and having the economy on a war footing. Just as importantly, the US's ability to access credit markets was under stress. It is doubtful the US had the money for much more warfare. Just as Iraq is straining the US now, WW II did then.

It is frequent that wars will plod along, in a desultory manner, until one side or the other executes a "Hail Mary" pass to bring the war to an end. That was necessary, and inevitable, in WW II. For that reason also, Patton did not get his way on continuing the fight to overturn Communism in Russia.

[jbg]

No, but you're always crapping all over Canada like an insecure little kid. Maybe Americans don't spend much time thinking about Canada, but you sure as hell do. Somehow you need to justify the fact that you're not Canadian.

You've just illustrated, with this segment, why I respond directly to the opening post, even wtih a lengthy thread. While I have not had much contact with you, this kind of posting does credit to no one.