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

[1967100]

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?

[M.Dancer]

Shame they didn't have the bomb in 43....

[August1991]

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

You imply that Truman decided to drop the second bomb only after dropping the first bomb. If you check the record, I think you'll find that Truman decided to drop two bombs from the beginning. (I could be wrong.)

Was Truman right to do this?

First, in Spring 1945 when Truman took this decision, he had conflicting reports of battles in Europe, cities destroyed, millions displaced or killed, all to defeat a single tyrant in Berlin. How many would die in a landing and invasion of Japan to defeat its tyrannical regime? Truman had at hand a device that could solve this quickly.

Second, coming out of two world wars, Truman knew that the US was on the side of good and that good people should not be afraid to show their force to evil people. In the spring of 1945, Truman wanted to show not once buy twice that an American president was not afraid to drop an atomic bomb.

----

Because of Truman, all American presidents since have had an extra card in their poker hand. The rest of us can sleep a little more easily.

[gc1765]

Whether or not the first one saved lives is debatable, but I don't think that they should have dropped the second one...at least not 3 days after.

[August1991]

Whether or not the first one saved lives is debatable, but I don't think that they should have dropped the second one...at least not 3 days after.

I have wondered about this too.

Truman had to do this. He was showing the world (and the future) that an American president would drop the bomb. Truman set a precedent.

[Riverwind]

Whether or not the first one saved lives is debatable, but I don't think that they should have dropped the second one...at least not 3 days after.

Hindsight is 20/20 - There was a war going on that had already killed millions of people. I don't think it worth castigating Truman for the choice.

[Riverwind]

I have wondered about this too.

The americans asked for an unconditional surrender - the japanese offered one with conditions regarding the emperor. The dropped other bomb and the the japanese offered to surrender with the same conditions which the americans accepted. Critiques of the Americans claim that they rejected the first offer because they wanted an excuse to drop the second bomb. A more charitable view would presume that the Americans realized the japanese would not remove that condition no matter how many bombs they dropped so they decided to be flexible - a wise decision that set the foundations for the peaceful relationship that japan and the US enjoy today.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

No, President Truman did not send another nuclear bomb to Nagasaki, as Kukura was the primary target. But since Kukura was obscured by weather, the secondary target, Nagasaki (which had been "lightly" bombed with HE and incendiaries in early August), was bombed with Fat Man (plutonium device) instead. A third device would have been available by month's end, with more due in September. Truman was prepared to use them if necessary.

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

Of course he did.....strategic bombing is a concept that is not dependent on warhead type. Many more Germans were killed by the Allied bombing campaign in Europe with conventional bombs (e.g. Dresden).

[bush_cheney2004]

I have wondered about this too.

Truman had to do this. He was showing the world (and the future) that an American president would drop the bomb. Truman set a precedent.

He also had to do it because the political sentiment in America was to absolutely crush Japan with extreme prejudice....then quickly rehab the country for the long struggle with the Soviet Union. American military forces still occupy bases in Japan to this day.

The Japanese were dehumanized by years of war propaganda and ghastly stories about Nanking, POW beheadings, medical experiments, etc. There was little sympathy for losing a single additional American GI compared to thousands of Japanese civilians. Pearl Harbor didn't help matters either. (Payback is a bitch.)

Edited August 14, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

The americans asked for an unconditional surrender - the japanese offered one with conditions regarding the emperor. The dropped other bomb and the the japanese offered to surrender with the same conditions which the americans accepted. Critiques of the Americans claim that they rejected the first offer because they wanted an excuse to drop the second bomb. A more charitable view would presume that the Americans realized the japanese would not remove that condition no matter how many bombs they dropped so they decided to be flexible - a wise decision that set the foundations for the peaceful relationship that japan and the US enjoy today.

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

----

I have always been more intrigued about the dates: 6 and 9 August. There is no way that Truman could have received any message in three days from the Japanese High Command. Truman knew that once the Japanese government understood the effects of Hiroshima - Nagasaki would already have happened. Truman knew that the Japanese had no time to respond after Hiroshima. If Truman had thought otherwise, he would have ordered the second bomb for two weeks later. Truman didn't. In the Spring 1945, Truman ordered two bombs and a tight schedule.

From the start, this was a two strike punch.

Edited August 14, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

....From the start, this was a two strike punch.

Three....the Soviets declared war on August 8th, fulfilling a Yalta agreement.

[1967100]

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

----

I have always been more intrigued about the dates: 6 and 9 August. There is no way that Truman could have received any message in three days from the Japanese High Command. Truman knew that once the Japanese government understood the effects of Hiroshima - Nagasaki would already have happened. Truman knew that the Japanese had no time to respond after Hiroshima. If Truman had thought otherwise, he would have ordered the second bomb for two weeks later. Truman didn't. In the Spring 1945, Truman ordered two bombs and a tight schedule.

From the start, this was a two strike punch.

I'm pretty sure three days is more than enough for the Emperor to publicly declare that Japan would be willing to surrender after learning about the first bomb on Hiroshima.

Though I'm suspicious because Truman probably wanted to use the bombs to show-off to the Soviets, which would become the American's nemesis during the Cold War.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm pretty sure three days is more than enough for the Emperor to publicly declare that Japan would be willing to surrender after learning about the first bomb on Hiroshima.

Though I'm suspicious because Truman probably wanted to use the bombs to show-off to the Soviets, which would become the American's nemesis during the Cold War.

Very simplistic....see this site for an excellent treatment of the entire matter, including original source documents, not half-assed opinions:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html

Edited August 14, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

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

Ok - I was simply repeating the anti-american arguments I had read and did not have reason to doubt their version of the facts (just the interpretation). If there was an unconditional surrender after the second bomb then there is really no argument against the second bomb.

From the start, this was a two strike punch.

Or a back-up plan in case one of the bombs was a dud...

[August1991]

I'm pretty sure three days is more than enough for the Emperor to publicly declare that Japan would be willing to surrender after learning about the first bomb on Hiroshima.

The Emperor declared in a verifiable manner?

These were 1940 war times, before the Internet. Truman ordered the two bombs well in advance knowing that a response after Hiroshima could change nothing. (Did Truman order three bombs and cancel the third?)

----

The OP's question is whether Truman did the right thing. IMV, there's no question that he did.

The broader question is good and bad. Truman was a good guy. Hitler was not. I have no patience for people who state that Truman did the same as Hitler. If Truman put people in concentration camps, I know that's not the same as Hitler putting people in concentration camps.

Sometimes I think that people today have lost their moral compass. As a religion, political correctness and moral relativism are no replacement for intelligent skepticism.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Sometimes I think that people today have lost their moral compass. As a religion, political correctness and moral relativism are no replacement for intelligent skepticism.

It started with the demise of the western on TV.....good vs. evil.

[GostHacked]

The Emperor declared in a verifiable manner?

The broader question is good and bad. Truman was a good guy. Hitler was not. I have no patience for people who state that Truman did the same as Hitler. If Truman put people in concentration camps, I know that's not the same as Hitler putting people in concentration camps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

Not sure if Truman carried on with the Japanese camps, (they should be clasified as concentration camps) but Rosevelt signed the act. I am sure Truman carried on the camps untill the war was over.

John L Witt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._DeWitt

I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.[15][16]

Quite the parallels between him and the Iranian leader's rhetoric towards Israel.

Sometimes I think that people today have lost their moral compass. As a religion, political correctness and moral relativism are no replacement for intelligent skepticism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure if Truman carried on with the Japanese camps, (they should be clasified as concentration camps) but Rosevelt signed the act. I am sure Truman carried on the camps untill the war was over.

Right...so what was Canada's excuse...or did Roosevelt sign that "order" too? The internments were upheld on challenge at the US Supreme Court.

[Rue]

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.

[GostHacked]

Right...so what was Canada's excuse...or did Roosevelt sign that "order" too? The internments were upheld on challenge at the US Supreme Court.

Not sure, what was our excuse? It is not relevant.

Furthermore. Truman I think weighed the options, along with the advice of this staff and came to the right conclusion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not sure, what was our excuse? It is not relevant.

Beats me...you brought it up eve though it is irrelevant....something about "concentration camps". Sometimes less is more.

Furthermore. Truman I think weighed the options, along with the advice of this staff and came to the right conclusion.

Good, because a lot of Canadians (and others) busted their asses to make it even possible.

[GostHacked]

Beats me...you brought it up eve though it is irrelevant....something about "concentration camps". Sometimes less is more.

Good, because a lot of Canadians (and others) busted their asses to make it even possible.

Someone wanted to know if there were concentration camps in the US. I answered with a Yes. It was relevant to the person who posed the question. It may not have been relevant to you, but you decided to respond anyways. Good job, again.

But you skipped over that, and went to the Blame Canada stance. Weak BC... weak.

[bush_cheney2004]

Someone wanted to know if there were concentration camps in the US. I answered with a Yes. It was relevant to the person who posed the question. It may not have been relevant to you, but you decided to respond anyways. Good job, again.

But you skipped over that, and went to the Blame Canada stance. Weak BC... weak.

Well, it seems to have worked....you're whining again because I pointed out the same circumstances in Canada, regardless of relevance or context. I don't know why it bugs you so much, but it only serves to encourage such responses in the future. If you think you can isolate critcism to the US while not smelling your own dung, you are quite mistaken.

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

[GostHacked]

Well, it seems to have worked....you're whining again because I pointed out the same circumstances in Canada, regardless of relevance or context. I don't know why it bugs you so much, but it only serves to encourage such responses in the future. If you think you can isolate critcism to the US while not smelling your own dung, you are quite mistaken.

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

Actually you are being really disingenuous here. Again the question was not "hey did Canada have concentration camps?? Nope. The question was did Truman have concentration camps. I know this is lost on you. I have already accepted your apology on many occasions. I will do it again this time as well.

But if you want to detract from the topic anymore, then I suggest just bowing out of the thread altogether. And the fact that you cannot stay in context or relevance, is proof you need to bow out now. Someone might think you are a troller . But I know better than that.

I will guess that I am not the only one who understands your style of posting.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually you are being really disingenuous here. Again the question was not "hey did Canada have concentration camps?? Nope. The question was did Truman have concentration camps. I know this is lost on you. I have already accepted your apology on many occasions. I will do it again this time as well.

What are you yammerin' about now? Truman did not issue Executive Order 9066...it was FDR's joint. I guess even the ones in Canada were Truman's too 'cause Canada only does bad things when the evil 'merkins make them.

But if you want to detract from the topic anymore, then I suggest just bowing out of the thread altogether. And the fact that you cannot stay in context or relevance, is proof you need to bow out now. Someone might think you are a troller . But I know better than that.

Yet it is you who continue for reasons that we will never know.

I will guess that I am not the only one who understands your style of posting.

Big frickin' deal....I think you take yourself and this forum far more seriously than I. Krikey.....are you going to shame me into repenting?