What was the alternative to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki??

Question

Every time anyone asks a question here about atomic bombs anyone who thinks it was a good idea gets a dozen 'thumbs downs'. Well here's a chance to all those anti-nuke answerers out there. For anyone who thinks bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad idea, what was the alternative? Should we have invaded Japan? Should we have sat back and done nothing and let the Russians invade Japan (Do you think Japan would be better off now if we had done that and it was a communist country?). What alternatives did the Allied leaders have in 1945 if they had chosen NOT to drop the bomb? Japan was NOT legitimately negotiating a surrender prior to Hiroshima. How would we have won the war had we not used atomic weapons? Should we have continued carpet bombing their cities with conventional weapons, continuing to lose allied aircrew on every mission? What do you think we should have done?

Answer 1

There were more reasons then simply the cost of lives in an invasion. You have named the alternatives pretty well yourself. We could have attempted a negotiated peace, we could have invaded, or we could have let Russia invade.
An invasion would have been costly in lives both for us and for them. Probably fewer civilians would have died but many more Americans and frankly we were tired of dieing by that point.
The Russians could have been allowed to invade but by then we already knew that the Soviet Union would be an enemy and we had no desire to let them establish themselves in the Pacific close to our own West Coast.
Negotiation was progressing very slowly and we were less then patient with Japan anyway considering how dearly we paid for every place we took back from them and how they treated our prisoners.
The last reason might be considered cold blooded but its equally valid. We needed to use the bomb to put the fear of us into everyone and shock the world into peace. Using the bomb slowed the Russians down in their land grab. With the war dieing down, they were snatching up every territory in sight and we needed to give them a moment of pause.

I think, given the situation, we did the right thing but the fact that we are still soul searching about it decades later and the fact that we never, ever want to do it again is part of what makes us great. We did what we had to but were not proud of it and we shouldn't ever be.

Answer 2

Some good answers so far, and some that are totally off base. Be careful what you use from here in your essay. Here's my take: By 1945 the world was tired of war. The economies of most of the major players in WWII were stretched near breaking. Enlistment rates were dwindling. Troops used in the European Theater weren't thrilled about having to go to the Pacific. Previous campaigns against the Japanese and those that involved amphibious operations were extremely costly both in terms of human life and material. On many occasions Japan had stated it's intent to fight to the last. This was shown on Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. Much of the US High Command feared the invasion of 'mainland' Japan. Fighting would be ruthless - on all sides - and hundreds of thousands would die. There was a justified threat of continued guerrilla warfare after organized resistance was eliminated. The forces necessary to invade Japan would have dwarfed the Normandy landings. President Truman knew very little about the atomic bombs. FDR had kept Truman from being briefed about the Manhattan Project. Truman knew about the destructive power of atomic weapons, but I don't think he understood the long term impact. Many Western political and military leaders thought keeping the Russians out of Japan was of paramount importance. There was a not insignificant school of thought that after the defeat of the Axis powers, the USSR and the West would go to war. Complete control of Japan would give the West a significant advantage in such a war. Also the demonstration of atomic weapons would serve as a serious deterrent to Soviet aggression. Western bombing raids routinely destroyed cities in both Europe and Japan. More people died and more damage was caused by the bombing of Tokyo than was caused in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Dresden attacks were far more horrific as well, and Dresden posed little or no threat as Germany was all but defeated. Oppenheimer, Einstein and other scientists on the Manhattan Project wrote Truman a letter imploring him to not use the weapons. They recognized the awesome power of atomic weapons, and were beginning to understand the long term after effects of radiation. Many workers associated with the Manhattan Project developed cancer and other effects of radiation poisoning because the impact of radiation wasn't fully understood. They had the technology to prevent or limit the impact but did not have the understanding to use it until it was too late. It is argued that the Japanese High Command was in the process of organizing a surrender when the Nagasaki bomb was dropped. It is also argued that American military commanders knew this, and ordered the drop in order to compare the effects of the two bombs (they were two different designs) and/or convince the Soviets that the US had many of these weapons (we only had the two). All things considered, it is hard to decide if the atomic bombings were the 'right' thing to do. By today's moral standards, the answer is clear (or at least I think so). The use of war in general and the use of weapons of mass destruction should be avoided whenever possible. By the standards of the day it is not so clear cut. Truman had limited information to work with. The one thing that was clear was that the quicker the war ended with the fewest American causalities the better for the country in general and Truman specifically. Then you also have to consider the "what ifs?" What if the US didn't drop atomic weapons in WWII and the public understanding of atomic weapons and the aftereffects wasn't developed? Would the MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory have come to be or would the US and the USSR have entered a nuclear war over something like the Berlin Blockade, the Korean Conflict or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Which is better - two cities or two major nations (and probably most of Europe) nuked? I think if I had been in Truman's place, I would have ordered the bombings. Hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions would have died in a invasion and the economic and social costs would have been extravagant as well. It may not have been the 'right' thing to do, but it was the right choice.

Answer 3

Mickey, Most of the respondants who answered were pretty accurate.The alternative was already in place and had been an ongoing operation even before Iwo Jima was taken.LtGen Curtis Lemay instituted Fire bombing the Japanese Cities with Incindiaries.It soon became a Day and Night operation the Japanese were helpless to stop.Over 40 Japanese coastal cities were completely razed to the ground.Millions of civilians were fleeing to the Mountains with no food.More destruction was caused by Fire Storms than both the "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" combined.It was inevitable Japan would capitulate and give up.However operation Olympic was the last straw and it would have been put into place had Emperor Hirohito not finally come to his senses.Incidentally,Marine Major Gregory "Pappy" Boyington was a POW about 20 miles fron the Nagasaki event.He witnessed the Flash and was close enough to feel the pressure wave.His eyewitness account is in his autobiography (Blacksheep Squadron?)When he was re-patriated he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in the Pacific by then President Truman.

Answer 4

I support the decesion to drop the bombs, but here are the other plans that the Allies were looking at were
1) Invasion that would have cost millions of lives in both Japanese and Allied armies.
2) Chemical Weapons that would have particulary deadly since a lot of the building were paper and wood.
3) Starve them out which would have resulted in millions of dead Japanese and prolonged the ongoing war in China.

Overall, the bombs saved more lives then they took. My grandfather was part of the occupaion. His first job there was on a checkpoint in Tokyo collecting the weapons passed out to every civilian. An invasion would not have been against just the Imperial Japanese Army, it would have been against the people of Japan.

On top of all that, Japan had plans to blow the locks on the Panama Canal and use a dirty bomb on the west coast if the war continued.

Answer 5

There was no alternative, it was done to save the estimated 5 million Allied casualties that were calculated to invade, and subdue the fanatic Japanese population of the Japanese homeland.

Most of the bombing over Japan was done from a very high altitude using "superfortresses" and the Japanese Anti Aircraft fire could not reach that high and their planes were of little effect at that height.

The Japanese received the effects of what they sowed throughout the Asian Continent, why people today continually post questions trying to argue the atomic bombing was wrong is beyond me and an insult to the millions who died under and fighting Japanese occupation.

Answer 6

The Japanese were tenacious warriors, and willing to fight to the death almost every time, Iwo Jima,Tarwa,Peleliu,ect. A land invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been an absolute bloodbath. The A-bombs being dropped speeded up the conclusion of WW2, also preventing the Soviet Union, who was preparing to attack Japan, from invading and occupying half the nation and partitioning the country into commie north Japan and free south Japan, much like the Korean partition.

Answer 7

My unit back then, the 45th Infantry Division, was brought home form Europe, debarked in New York and immediately put on trains for the West Coast.

They were going to be in the first wave of the floating reserve for Operation Olympic, the planned amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The bombs were dropped and the war ended before they got to California.

The Japanese governmetn was preparing for an every man woman and child defense of the home islands. Given the to the last man defense the Japanese had made of islands to which thye has much less attachment and the extreme disfavor with which they viewed surrender and capture, the estimates were that we would have lost over 1 million troops. I have no doubt that today, it would be a rarity to find a Japanese person from Japan had that happened.

Answer 8

No. Invading Japan would have resulted in more blood shed. Another route is to conutinue to use conventianal bombing and blockade but Japan we assume could survive for several years. With the war in Europe the US public wanted a quick end in the Pacific.So dropping the bombs was justifed. The russians would have never invaded before us. They were fighting for survival then revenage when they were fighting Germany that is not why they were fighting Japan.

Answer 9

I agree that there was no other viable alternative. The U.S. needed a quick way to end the war, the bombs, although not expected to end the war so quickly did this. Additionally, the U.S. public had grown weary of the war and there was a fear that public opinion might result in less then Unconditional Surrender. Another thing to bear in mind was that the U.S. needed to show the world the destructive power of the A-bomb, it was hoped that this display of power would prevent the Soviets from messing with us or Europe in such a weakened state. And finally, the U.S. hoped that the bomb would also end war as we knew and that no one would dare start another war for fear of our A-bombs.

Answer 10

The Japanes culture was not what it is today. They had a voracious fighting spirit (The Bushido Code). They would rather have died than lost their honor.

The alternative would have been an amphibious landing on mainland Japan (think Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa). I have taken the Okinawa battle sites tour there. The carnage was unfathomable.



Put it this way, they were so determined, they did not even surrender after the most powerful bombing in world history. It took a second bomb!

PEACE THROUGH ABSOLUTE STRENGTH!!!