I often see people talk about how the bombs saved so many lives. The problem is that we don't know for sure what would have happened.
On one hand, if there had been a large scale mass invasion of mainland Japan, casualties would have been very high indeed. There difference I see here though is civilian vs military. While I'm not trying to devalue the life of a member of the military, I feel like a child who has never held a gun shouldn't be the one who needs to die in order to save soldiers. If we really needed to use a nuke, I don't see why it couldn't have been a more militaristic target, maybe an island airfield or something with a lower civilian ratio. Downtown nagasaki/hiroshima to me is like saying "yeah there are some factories here, so 300k women and children have to die."
Now that my personal opinion is out of the way...
The war was about done, and Japan was defeated. With Germany defeated, Russia was ready to turn its eyes on Japan, and everyone knew it. It was only a matter of time for the war to be over, Japan was exhausted in resources and had no allies left. So to say that the war would have never ended without nukes is simply false.
I'm about to turn this into a super long post since I think it's important...
In a 1986 study, historian and journalist Edwin P. Hoyt nailed the "great myth, perpetuated by well-meaning people throughout the world," that "the atomic bomb caused the surrender of Japan." In Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict (p. 420), he explained:
The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.
---
The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock pp. 124, 132:
... By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ...
Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas.
---
From the conclusion of a 1946 report done by United States Strategic Bombing Survey:
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
---
Personal opinions aside, based on the facts, the bombs were unnecessary.
Personal opinions in place, I feel they were a simple display of power. Not only to Japan, but to the rest of the world including Russia. No surprise that shortly after, we entered a cold war with our previous ally. A horrible waste of life in a war where humanity had already been taxed far beyond what anyone should ever have to witness.
War sucks. |