Was the first atomic bomb justified?

[Ardavia]

It's either atomic bombing or initiating Operation Downfall.

False dichotomy.

There is no evidence that the Japanese were planning on surrendering. The Allies' options were basically a choice between launching Downfall, hoping the nukes would force a Japanese surrender, and letting the Japanese Empire stay in power (and the last one wasn't going to happen).

Quite the opposite, in fact, considering that with even the hardliners acknowledging that Japan was beyond any hope of victory, it still took an ultimatum, ample warning of the planned bombing, and not one, but two, nuke strikes before they actually surrendered, and this decision was still met with an attempted coup from the hardliners.

If you insist otherwise, please show evidence of the assertion that the Japanese were actually planning on unconditionally surrendering and wouldn't have tried for what we have historical citation they were hoping for, i.e. a favourable negotiated treaty with the Allies with minimal Japanese concessions and the Emperor and military government remaining in power.

[Grave_n_idle]

False dichotomy.

There is no evidence that the Japanese were planning on surrendering. The Allies' options were basically a choice between launching Downfall, hoping the nukes would force a Japanese surrender, and letting the Japanese Empire stay in power (and the last one wasn't going to happen).

So, by your own admission, your dichotomy was false - you've immediately offered a third option. Whether you consider it acceptable or not is irrelevant. By your own admission, there were NOT just two choices, as you'd previously claimed. (The point I addressed).

Of course, there were other options, too. The fact that it was pretended that there were only two (well, three) options doesn't mean we have to perpetuate that lie.

[Valaran]

That, and they needed to end the war quickly before the Soviets went through their version of Downfall. Which if IIRC it was going be earlier than Downfall because it was less prepared and more to take as much territory as possible, result in a blood fest. Sort of like their Manchurian offensive but much, much worse.

The Soviet invasion of Hokkaido was going to be earlier, but Soviet naval readiness/resources was not nearly at the same level, so its quite debatable as to how conceptual the whole plan was, and whether they could have feasibly launched an invasion in the timeframe before Downfall.

Of course, what really matters is how concerned the Americans and Japanese felt over Soviet advances (both actual and potential), not whether the Soviets could actually take Hokkaido.

[Ardavia]

There is no evidence that the Japanese were planning on surrendering. The Allies' options were basically a choice between launching Downfall, hoping the nukes would force a Japanese surrender, and letting the Japanese Empire stay in power (and the last one wasn't going to happen).

So, by your own admission, your dichotomy was false - you've immediately offered a third option. Whether you consider it acceptable or not is irrelevant. By your own admission, there were NOT just two choices, as you'd previously claimed. (The point I addressed).

Of course, there were other options, too. The fact that it was pretended that there were only two (well, three) options doesn't mean we have to perpetuate that lie.

I'm not the one you originally quoted

and the point stands that the Allies basically had two options - option number three was effectively a non-option, and I'd really like to see what other options you purport there to be with regards to resolving the situation with Japan

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not the one you originally quoted

Meh. The point still works.

and the point stands that the Allies basically had two options...

Still not true. By your own admission.

[Ardavia]

I'm not the one you originally quoted

Meh. The point still works.

and the point stands that the Allies basically had two options...

Still not true. By your own admission.

Technically three options.

Two of them are actually realistic options.

So, yeah, I'm saying there were two options for the Allies, because that's what the situation was like. The fact that there is technically a third option of letting Japan get away with what they hoped for, status quo ante bellum, is irrelevant, because it was never going to happen.

But please, do keep pretending that there were realistic options for the Allies other than "Launch Downfall" and "drop the nukes to hopefully induce Japan into surrendering". It's really interesting to see you try and weasel out of actually providing any evidence at all to back up these claims.

[Grave_n_idle]

Technically three options.

Three is not a technicality. It's also not the only options that could have been entertained.

Two of them are actually realistic options.

Two of them were presented for consideration. That's not the same thing.

So, yeah, I'm saying there were two options for the Allies...

I'm aware. You're wrong.

It's a false dichotomy, and it was (and his since been) deliberately employed to justify WMDs on civilians.

[Rio Cana]

That, and they needed to end the war quickly before the Soviets went through their version of Downfall. Which if IIRC it was going be earlier than Downfall because it was less prepared and more to take as much territory as possible, result in a blood fest. Sort of like their Manchurian offensive but much, much worse.

The Soviet invasion of Hokkaido was going to be earlier, but Soviet naval readiness/resources was not nearly at the same level, so its quite debatable as to how conceptual the whole plan was, and whether they could have feasibly launched an invasion in the timeframe before Downfall.

Of course, what really matters is how concerned the Americans and Japanese felt over Soviet advances (both actual and potential), not whether the Soviets could actually take Hokkaido.

The Soviets had air superiority. You can see Hokkaido from Sakhalin. Once the Russians took back Southern Sakhalin (Karafuto was the Japanese name) they just needed to plan for a quick invasion of Hokkaido which was 40 km. (25 miles away).

Map of what Japanese control in that area - http://www.karafuto.com/portsm.gif

Map which shows the Soviet advance in Sakhalin and Kuril island chain - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... on.svg.png

A Soviet map of the same advance - http://www.rkka.ru/maps/dvs12.gif

La Pérouse Strait, or Sōya Strait, is a strait dividing the southern part of the Russian island of Sakhalin (Karafuto) from the northern part of the Japanese island of Hokkaidō, and connecting the Sea of Japan on the west with the Sea of Okhotsk on the east.

The strait is 40 km (25 mi) long and 20 to 40 m (66 to 131 ft) deep. A small rocky island, appropriately named Kamen Opasnosti (Russian for "Rock of Danger") is located in the Russian waters in the northeastern part of the strait. Another small island, Bentenjima, lies near the Japanese shore of the strait.

Edit - Looking at the Soviet maps, it seems the Soviets were more concerned with taking back the Kuril islands then going after Hokkaido. Control of the Kuril island would make sure they would control the entry points into the Sea of Okhotsk. Thus there fleet would not have to go via foreign waters when leaving the Russian Far East. You need to remember that the Russians were kind of bottled up by Japan. They control the entrance to the Sea of Japan (remember they controlled Korea) and Sea of Okhotsk.

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes it was justified. The Japanese were ruthless and commit thousands of war crimes. My great uncle was a PoW in the Hellfire Pass and came back a fifth of his weight and was skinny as fuck. The second one was justified as well, and if there was a third one it would've been justified too.

Tell me about how the children killed in the bombings tortured your great uncle.

So what you're saying is that if I murder thousands of people and then give the loot obtained thereby to other people. That loot is then untouchable because those other people didn't murder anyone.

Humans don't live in a vacuum.

[Quokkastan]

Tell me about how the children killed in the bombings tortured your great uncle.

So what you're saying is that if I murder thousands of people and then give the loot obtained thereby to other people. That loot is then untouchable because those other people didn't murder anyone.

Humans don't live in a vacuum.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mention loot... at all.

What he was saying was that if I kill your uncle, killing my niece isn't justice.

[United Slavians]

This topic is starting to look as nothing more than a joke. By saying that "there was no other option" or that it was "the least painful option" the people defending the nuclear attack are practicaly claiming that Japan was stronger than the rest of the planet. There was one very simple option: naval blocade of the island. That way all Japanese casualties during the blocade would be the fault of the Japanese government, and we wouldn't have been having this ridiculous discussion. Using nuclear bombs was wrong how ever you look at it. All deaths from the bombs and later radiation are the direct fault of USA's ego. So lay the blame where it lies, nobody cares about the enemy in war, USA is no exeption. Even today USA only cares about itself.
Let me repeat this: The Americans cared about Japan and their casualties as much as Japanese cared about the casualties of their enemies. In short, they just didn't care.

[Ardavia]

Three is not a technicality. It's also not the only options that could have been entertained.

Two of them were presented for consideration. That's not the same thing.

Please, do tell, what other options there were.

Or are you just going to ignore that question again because you have nothing to actually back this claim up?

I'm aware. You're wrong.

It's a false dichotomy, and it was (and his since been) deliberately employed to justify WMDs on civilians.

Right.

I'm wrong, even despite historical evidence (The plans for Ketsu-Go, the events regarding the surrender and the attempted coup, oh, and the Japanese refusal to surrender even after complete military defeat [because at any point after 1944, Japan was never going to win], the effective destruction of their Navy, the loss of their occupied territories and even Okinawa, the massive destruction of their cities caused by the strategic bombing campaign, the Potsdam ultimatum, the ample warning given before the strike, and the first nuclear strike...) backing me up.

Meanwhile, all you've managed to show in evidence of there actually being other realistic options, besides launching Downfall and dropping the nukes, available at the time... is somewhere roughly between diddly and squat.

But hey, keep insisting that the US was completely wrong in dropping the nukes, maybe it'll come true if you repeat it enough.

[Quokkastan]

This topic is starting to look as nothing more than a joke. By saying that "there was no other option" or that it was "the least painful option" the people defending the nuclear attack are practicaly claiming that Japan was stronger than the rest of the planet. There was one very simple option: naval blocade of the island. That way all Japanese casualties during the blocade would be the fault of the Japanese government, and we wouldn't have been having this ridiculous discussion. Using nuclear bombs was wrong how ever you look at it. All deaths from the bombs and later radiation are the direct fault of USA's ego. So lay the blame where it lies, nobody cares about the enemy in war, USA is no exeption. Even today USA only cares about itself.
Let me repeat this: The Americans cared about Japan and their casualties as much as Japanese cared about the casualties of their enemies. In short, they just didn't care.

Although, going that rout, there's a decent chance that Hokkaido would now be owned by the Russians.

[Valaran]

The Soviets had air superiority. You can see Hokkaido from Sakhalin. Once the Russians took back Southern Sakhalin (Karafuto was the Japanese name) they just needed to plan for a quick invasion of Hokkaido which was 40 km. (25 miles away).

Map of what Japanese control in that area - http://www.karafuto.com/portsm.gif

Map which shows the Soviet advance in Sakhalin and Kuril island chain -

Yes, I am aware, but none of this means they were in any way prepared for an invasion of Hokkaido - the US has relative aerial superiority over Japan as well, but no one was pretending Operation Downfall would be easy. There is absolutely nothing quick about such an operation, and you'll note I specifically mentioned naval readiness as the principal shortcoming. Would you like comparative figures?

[Republican Union of America]

Duh. It ended the war.

[Quokkastan]

Duh. It ended the war.

I can't help but think that blowing up the planet would have ended the war as well.

[Grave_n_idle]

Duh. It ended the war.

The war was over.

[United Slavians]

Although, going that rout, there's a decent chance that Hokkaido would now be owned by the Russians.

Exactly, that's how Americans of that time were thinking too. The ONLY thing behind using the bombs is USA's ego that was hurt when the Soviets made it to Berlin before they did.
There is no other explanation, there is no other justification.

[Ardavia]

This topic is starting to look as nothing more than a joke. By saying that "there was no other option" or that it was "the least painful option" the people defending the nuclear attack are practicaly claiming that Japan was stronger than the rest of the planet. There was one very simple option: naval blocade of the island. That way all Japanese casualties during the blocade would be the fault of the Japanese government, and we wouldn't have been having this ridiculous discussion. Using nuclear bombs was wrong how ever you look at it. All deaths from the bombs and later radiation are the direct fault of USA's ego. So lay the blame where it lies, nobody cares about the enemy in war, USA is no exeption. Even today USA only cares about itself.

Because the deliberate infliction of mass starvation on innocent civilians and killing millions of Japanese is much better than dropping two nukes that killed between 130,000 and 250,000 people...

[The Emerald Legion]

So what you're saying is that if I murder thousands of people and then give the loot obtained thereby to other people. That loot is then untouchable because those other people didn't murder anyone.

Humans don't live in a vacuum.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mention loot... at all.

What he was saying was that if I kill your uncle, killing my niece isn't justice.

Same principle. I was just using that particular example to point out there's little difference between demanding reparations and this.

[Quokkastan]

Although, going that rout, there's a decent chance that Hokkaido would now be owned by the Russians.

Exactly, that's how Americans of that time were thinking too. The ONLY thing behind using the bombs is USA's ego that was hurt when the Soviets made it to Berlin before they did.
There is no other explanation, there is no other justification.

Okay, but incidentally, that would have been worse for the Japanese.

Your kindness is strangely cruel.

[Ardavia]

Duh. It ended the war.

The war was over.

By that logic, the war in Europe was over in 1944, when the Germans no longer had a hope of victory.

[United Slavians]

Because the deliberate infliction of mass starvation on innocent civilians and killing millions of Japanese is much better than dropping two nukes that killed between 130,000 and 250,000 people...

Did you even read what i wrote?
Snap out if it. Seriously.

[Quokkastan]

I'm pretty sure he didn't mention loot... at all.

What he was saying was that if I kill your uncle, killing my niece isn't justice.

Same principle. I was just using that particular example to point out there's little difference between demanding reparations and this.

There's quite a bit of difference. And that's why you chose an example so unrelated to the circumstances.

[United Slavians]

Okay, but incidentally, that would have been worse for the Japanese.

Your kindness is strangely cruel.

How do you know? And better yet, why would you care?
The only way you can claim this is because you didn't feel Japenese cruelty. Ask any Chineese what he thinks about it,a nd i dare you to speak about cruelty again.