Would you have used the Atomic Bomb ?

Question

If you were President Truman in 1945, knowing that:

a)The defeat of the Japanese was a matter of time and lives.
b)The invasion of the Home Islands would have created a suicidal defence against any invading force prepared to take heavy casulties beyond reason.
c)Any invasion force facing such fierce resistance would pay a terrible price in lives (which you had sworn an oath to protect).
d)Russian influence would increase in Asia as it had in post war Europe as Stalin was about to honour his treaty obligations now that Germany had been defeated.
e)You had at your disposal a weapon of incredible destructive power, which if used may well bring about an early victory and keep the Soviet war machine from being directed against former allies should the balance of world politics change.
f)That each weapon if used would destroy a complete city, kill thousands upon thousands of civilians instantly, maiming and wounding many thousands more possibly for generations to come.

I am aware that Japan had made limited offers of peace, however they failed to have the full support of the military leaders and civilian government.
If you look at Soviet history Stalin did in fairness honour his treaty obligations, but exploited situations for his own political gain wherever feasable (halting the advance until the collapse of the warsaw uprising).
Fire bombing cities had been done in Europe and Japan but whilst massive loss of live incurred had not delivered the collapse in resistance hoped for.

The question is posed as one of personnal judgement, so as such there is no right or wrong answer provided any answer given can be justified.

Answer 1

a. They were in fact still fighting tooth and nail despite their desperate situation.

b. The planned invasion called for the use of chemical agents such as Lewisite, a blister agent, which was going to be used as part of the pre-invasion bombardment that was scheduled to begin two weeks prior to the invasion and continue up until the day of invasion. It was very likely killed something on the order of a million or more Japanese civilians. A fate far worse than the two atomic bombings, large tracts of land in Japan would have remained uninhabitable even until today.

c. U.S. Lives, the object of warfare is to close with and destroy the enemy. As long as Japanese bore arms and resisted, they continued being the enemy.

d. What are you suggesting here? The Soviet Union took advantage of the Japanese entering late in the Asia Theater of Operations! Prior to the Soviet entry into the fight against they kept telling the Japanese they would relay their peace
proposals to the American and didn't!

e. The Soviet Union posed no threat to Europe in 1945 and well into 1946 as their ground forces were nearly at their breaking point. They had to strip their forces in Europe in order to mount operation in China against the Japanese.

f. If there was any atomic bombs available 'Fire Bombing' by the Twentieth Air Force under LTG Curtis LeMay was having nearly the same results on the Japanese cities and population.

Answer 2

Yes, I would have used the Atomic bomb. Most estimates (they widely vary) put U.S military casualties if we were to invade Japan almost at the level of Japanese casualties from the Atomic bombs. Then, if you consider that Japanese military and civilian casualties would probably be higher than those of the U.S, you are left to believe that technically, lives were saved by dropping the atomic bombs. That choice was very tragic and horrific, but the dedication of the Japanese to protect their homes and the great effort of the U.S to triumph over Japan would have been much more catastrophic in an offensive campaign.

Answer 3

No, I would not have. Please read before leaping to any conclusions.

You left out the fact that Japan had been trying to surrender for months, and Truman rejected their terms. After we bombed them, he accepted their terms. All over a silly emperor.

All of the top Allied generals were AGAINST using the bomb, especially Eisenhower.

Just demonstrating it to them would have been overkill, but we are stuck with our own history.

I'm no pacifist. I'm the proud son of a WW2 bomber pilot who flew the B-29s and was stationed on Tinian through the time the aircraft with the bombs arrived and took off from that island. He had his own questions as to the A-bomb's military usefulness and could only take solace in knowing Stalin saw it.

My father was awarded the DFC and 3 Air Medals for valor in combat. I am quite proud to have had him as a father, mentor and role model.

Answer 4

I would not have hesitated to deploy a nuke as Truman did. I think he did the right thing. It's sad when the right thing is instantly vaporizing thousands of people and destroying 2 cities, but when you look at the alternatives it was the lesser of those two evils.

Answer 5

Yes it has been shown that it ended the war early and saved millions of allies and Japanese. Japan would have fought to the death if it had not been for the bomb. What we seem to have forgotten, is you don't go to war unless you have to and once you do, you fight to win.

Answer 6

No, I would've slowly starved and cut off Japan (while bombing it to Neolithic age)

Answer 7

if I was Truman - Yes.

keep in mind that by then the U.S. had already fire bombed Tokyo and many other cities.
the atomic bomb killed less people than just one night of fire bombing Tokyo.
(about 100,000 killed in one raid that set Tokyo on fire)

maybe you should ask if people would have been willing to fire bomb cities ? can you imagine burning 100,000 civilians to death in one night ?

Answer 8

Yes. Truman made the right decision.

Answer 9

Yes. I would have used it also, during the Korean war when China crossed into North Korea.

Answer 10

thats a hard 1 cos i'm english born and bred, but yes i would x