Was the Bombing of Nagasaki necessary? Or was it a war crime?

Question

Nagasaki was bombed only three days after Hiroshima hardly allowing the Japanese leadership time to acess the damages caused by the first bomb even without accounting for the effects of the elctromagnetic pulse on communication.
Did we originally plan to drop both bombs to se the difference of effects of both types of weapons ( Uranium, and Plutonium) ,or worse yet did we kill 75000 men women and children to show the Soviets we had more than one and intimidate our then ally?

for the person who stated emp had no effect because the comunications were different. I am sorry to have to correct you on this but all elctronics communication are effected by emp.
Purhaps today they have ways around it, but then they had never had one before, what makes yoy assertain that we had better safegaurds then then now?

Answer 1

It may or may not have been militarily justified (probably not -- we could have waited), but it saddens me to see some of the other answerers here applaud the decision as well-deserved vengeance for Pearl Harbor. Most of the people our that our "strategic" bombings, conventional and atomic, killed in Japan were innocent of the crimes their government had committed. Indeed, many of them, knowing only the official version of "the truth", had had no idea.

The dropping of the atomic bombs were a deeply horrific example of the dehumanization and brutality of war, not something that any decent adult with half a brain would shrug off with "well, those bastards deserved it". Maybe it had to be done, but we should feel no pride or vindication in it -- only shame that this is the only way we as humans seem to know how to solve problems amongst ourselves.

The kind of attitude that says a whole culture ought to be punished for the wrong-doings of its bad leaders is one that's learned nothing from the past 100 years. Eye-for-an-eye thinking, if we decide to indulge in it, makes us no different from Al Queda.

Answer 2

Well that question can be answered either way.
On the one hand, it saved the lives of about 1 million American troops that would have been slaughtered had they tried to invade the Japanese mainland. The Japanese were prepared to fight with woman and children if it came down to it.
On the other hand, the atomic bomb presented a weapon of such terror that just the thought of the result of another war involving thermonuclear weapons has kept such a war from ever happening.
I do agree that part of the reason the bomb was dropped was to try to scare off the soviets but at what price? The horror that was inflicted on the Japanese people was terrible beyond known definitions of the word.
Also remeber this: the Germans were already working on their own atomic weapons and that technology was transferred to Japan toward the close of the war. If the Japanese had more time they might have ended up using that same weapon on us. Hmmm that's certainly some food for thought.
No matter the opinion though, what happened in Japan was horrible and we need to always remember the lessons we learned from it without pointing the finger of blame.
Now as far as dropping the second bomb is was done with the intention of proving to the Japanese that we did have more than one and that failure to surrender would result in further use of atomic weapons. It was feared that if we dropped one and left it at that, then the Japanese would think that we only had one and would continue to fight. The reason the bombs were made from different materials was the result of the supply of material and the fact that we didn't want to scrap the first bomb because the newer one.

Answer 3

OK, good question. Historians can continue to debate this based on their own individual points of view and philosophies, Here's what I think.

In the climate that existed, and with captured and intercepted information available to Pres. Truman and other U.S. and allied leaders, it was a certainty that no matter what the Allies did in those final months of WW II , the Japanese Government intended a scorched earth, house by house defense of their Home Islands.

Prior to the 1st A-Bomb being dropped on Hiroshima on Aug,6, there was 1.) The A-Test at the Trinity site in New Mexico in mid-July, 2.) the Potsdam conference and Potsdam Declaration which made specific mention of the consequences of a refusal to yield on the part of Japan, and 3.) specific diplomatic communication to Japan through intermediaries spelling out in no uncertain terms that our new weapon would be used, and used AS OFTEN AND AS MUCH AS NECESSARY, to bring the Japanese Empire to the recognition that surrender was their only alternative.

After Hiroshima, the Japanese didn't "have to assess the damage"----Hiroshima basically ceased to exist. Communications did exist------they were not disrupted------and the Allies allowed Japan an entire 3 days to make a sane decision. That they did not do so is the guilt and shame that the Japanese Government, not the U.S. must bear.

Remember, too, that the use of atomic weapons was decided upon to save at least hundreds of thousands of both Allied and Japanese lives that an invasion would have cost.

Answer 4

Are you studying this in school or is this just some kind of rant? If so, you must not be old enough to know what it was like in the 1940's. Japan started the whole thing, then when they were warned and told to surrender, they refused to even listen. I was a teenager, and had both brothers, 3 cousins, 2 uncles and a raft of friends in various services, some of whom had already been killed. I didn't care, and still don't, how many Japanese were killed. They should not have started it.

President Truman was told how many lives would be lost if the Allies invaded Japan, both Allied servicemen and Japanese. The losses from two bombs was much less than that.

Besides, as one poster said, they asked for it, and they got it. Now find something useful to ask about!

Answer 5

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.

The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 6

No we didnt do it to show Stalin what power we had,he(stalin was told about the Bomb in Germany at the end of the war by Truman,we dropped the second bomb because Hirohito wasnt ready to give up and surrender unconditionally,and as far as an electro-magnetic impulse,it only shuts down operating electronics,how long do you think it would take to change radio-vacuumed transistor tubes for a shortwave radio,a few moments,then it would work again.The people of Japan were willing to fight to the last man,woman and child,and the bloodshed of countless Americans would have been spilled,The troops in Europe already had their orders for re-deployment to the pacific,there were two and a half days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki,more than enough ample time to get a communication to the USA for surrender,but it didnt come...p.s.the phone lines were working outside the ground zero areas

Answer 7

Yes it was. The Japanese did not surrender after the bombing of Nagasaki, it wasn't until another 1000 bombers attacked eight cities on the night of the 14th that they finally surrendered.

This is the chronology from Wikipedia. Notice that six days elapsed between the bombing of Nagasaki and the surrender.

July 26, 1945: Potsdam Declaration is issued. Truman tells Japan, "Surrender or suffer prompt and utter destruction."
July 29: Japan rejects the Potsdam Declaration.
Aug 2: Potsdam conference ends.
Aug 6: A nuclear bomb, "Little Boy" is dropped on Hiroshima.
Aug 8: USSR declares war on Japan.
Aug 9: Another nuclear bomb, "Fat Man" is dropped on Nagasaki.
Aug 15: Japan surrenders.

Answer 8

I was just born, May 15/41 - so I live with that History, told to me over and over, and of course, everyone has a different "catch" on it. From being a "bit" of a History buff, I think President Truman was correct in his judgement. The bombing of Pearl Harbour was a terrible loss to the US Navy, almost every ship, all the air carriers, ground personnel, and we were not at war with Japan! Truman gave it back, and brought Peace to the World. Yes, 75000 were killed, 6 Million Jews were being slaughtered, many American Military had been killed, this had nothing to do with the Soviets, The Soviets were are Allies! - it was Germany. The next mass civilian life, will not be from an Atomic or Nuclear War, it will be a Catastrophic Environmental Disaster! which man worldwide has contributed to and will cause the loss of 90% of the Human Race, all Animal Life and all Greenery! If you are 40 years of age or younger, you will be here when it happens! Get Ready... Merry Christmas

Answer 9

It was necessary because the bombing at Hiroshima did not end the war immediately. This is because the Japanese were still relatively stable and did not believe that the U.S. could have another one of the destructive bombs.

Answer 10

It was a hard and vicious war crime which initiated the new world.

1. The USA new Japan was about to surrender, dont believe the people who tell you otherwise, they simply knew. The bomb was therefore not dropped to stop Japan.

2. The bomb was the first act of the cold war. The bomb was dropped to show the Soviet-Union that they had a very powerful weapen. thousands Japanese died because of this intimidation method. The bomb was never any good against Japan. It was very good against Stalin.