ralper

It is now sixty years since we used the atomic bomb. This week is the sixtieth anniversary of the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The results were horrific, the deaths, the suffering and the total destruction of two cities. Yet on the other hand, it ended the war in the Pacific and probably saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese.

The debate continues. Did Truman make the right decision in authorizing the use of the Atomic bomb. Were the results justified by the end of the war? Was there another way?

What do you think? Did Truman make the right decision?



What do you think.

Morris

My opinion is that if it indeed saved more lives than it took, and ended the war earlier than it would have, then the decision was the right one.
I wonder though, if there was some place within sight of military or government personnel, such as an island or bay, where they could have detonated the bomb with less loss of life, but with the same impact (shock and awe) and then give the Japanese an ultimatum to surrender or face the same over their cities? That must have been considered, but I don't know that for a fact.
I'm glad those decisions are not in my lap.
Isn't it past your bedtime, Rob?

ralper

No, actually I'm still up reading the Sunday Times on line. The only things that I don't get on line are the comics (with our local New Jersey papers) and the sale fliers. I'll have to get up early to get those.

I too think that the bomb was justified if it saved more lives than it took. I also think we have to remember the political climate and tone of the times the decision was made in.

As far as warning the Japanese, I think that Truman did warn them prior to bombing Hiroshima and called for their surrender. I also think that he called for their surrender after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki. There was no response and so he authorized the strike on Nagasaki.

It is an interesting debate.

Matt_in_VA

Rob,

I would have never thought that I would hear (see) those words from you?

Perhaps contary to "popular belief" about my political views and the war on terrorism. And, as I was opposed to the Viet Nam conflict that I was drafted to fight.

I do believe, that there is a time, and place where when a very difficult decision has to be made. In the case of entering the nuclear age, I agree in the long run, it saved more lives than where lost. By putting an early end to the war.

To go off topic for a bit: We have entered a new phase in the history of the world where the enemy (like in Viet Nam) is no longer wearing a uniform. This unfortunately is because the U.S. and some of our allies have developed technologies that make our forces unbeatable in the conventional sense. Therefore, we like our enemies have to adapt too their new means of fighting. NOT give up the fight!

Palmateer

Why Truman dropped the Bomb - we now have the intelligence intercepts that shaped US wartime policy:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...05/894mnyyl.asp

ralper

Why not? I think that statement illustrates how you've stereotyped those of us who have a liberal point of view and how badly you misunderstand our opposition to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

We are not against justice among nations, we are no less patriotic, and no less willing to support our military than you are, we just don't want to be involved in senseless wars fought for all of the wrong reasons, and we don't think that the answer comes, in most cases, from the barrel of a gun. At least not in our recent conflicts. We are not willing to accept the need for military intervention simply because our president drapes himself in the flag and insists that its what we have to do.

World War II was and will always be a completely different situation and set of circumstances than anything that followed and especially our military expedition into Iraq.

That is part of the reason why the question of Truman's decision to use the Atomic bomb continues to be so interesting.

dlq04

Yes. The fact we had to drop a second one, showed they didn't get the message the first time. In hind sight people will always say but couldn't we have found another way? Like all second guesser's they don't offer any concrete ideas that I've heard even 60 years later.

Chazmo

Wow, tough question. I'm really not going to state an opinion. We can only understand how pissed off Americans were about Pearl Harbor to get a feel for the climate in which Truman chose to take this action. Also, who knows what bull MacArthur was feeding him for intel...

I realize this isn't exactly what Rob was asking, but we should also take into account the 50 years of (relative) peace which ensued after Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Mutual fear of destruction as a force for peace would never have existed otherwise. As grotesque as it may be, keep in mind that no weapon is ever truly understood or feared until it's used at least once. Hydrogen (thermonukes) bombs and MIRVed missle delivery systems developed after WWII made war between the Soviets and NATO an essentially "insane" idea -- i.e., no sane leader would let it happen.

Some thoughts from the Enola Gay's bombadier:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/arti...ry_to_end_wwii/

ralper

Dave,

That is the most puzzling part of this whole question. How in the world could the Japanese generals and leadership not surrender after witnessing the results of the first bomb on Hiroshima. And, in addition, they had to know that the war was lost anyway and that it was just a matter of time.

Still, they didn't surrender until after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

Honda 367

Yes!