NationStates Jolt Archive

Were they justifiable targets?

My birthday is on Hiroshima Memorial Day...

I've consistently vouched "no", but this issue has been beaten to death on these forums.

they didn't serve a stratigic value but a moral value

without them most historians believe we would have had to invade Japan and that really wouldn't have been fun, for us or the Japanese

so in conclution dropping the bomb was more than justifiable, while it cost thousands of lives it saved millions (not to mention the material costs of the invasion and re-building and even more beat up Japan)

I say yes. For one, millions of civilians would be killed in an invasion along with millions of American and allied troops. If the A-bombs weren't dropped I would not be here as my grandfather would be part of the invasion force and could've been easily killed.

Many will argue that the Japanese would not fight, but that is not true. The Japanese had developed many new weapons and were ready to use them if they were invaded. The Japanese people do not look favorably upon surrender in their culture and would fight to the death before surrendering.

Many people will call the bombings war crimes, but I don't buy that argument. More civilians would be killed in any other alternative including the idea to blockade food shipments and starve them. Besides, the Japanese did far worse with their "Korean sex slaves," Manchuria, and Bataan Death March. What we did saved millions of lives in the end.

It is late fall 1946. Japan was invaded after 6 months of brutal combat. 1 million americans and 2-4 million Japanese are dead.

Certianly, since the bombs only killed some 300,000 (?) people, this was a better choice.

they didn't serve a stratigic value but a moral value

without them most historians believe we would have had to invade Japan and that really wouldn't have been fun, for us or the Japanese

so in conclution dropping the bomb was more than justifiable, while it cost thousands of lives it saved millions (not to mention the material costs of the invasion and re-building and even more beat up Japan)

However, take a look beyond the immidate happenings.

Now we have this wonderful nuclear diplomacy, in which we say "I have a nuke, and you don't. I r0xx0rs your b0xx0rs. You have no chance, make your time"

It is late fall 1946. Japan was invaded after 6 months of brutal combat. 1 million americans and 2-4 million Japanese are dead.

Certianly, since the bombs only killed some 300,000 (?) people, this was a better choice.
The 300,000 was bad, but by far a better result than the alternative.

Well I would have chosen tokyo, and somewhere in germany, probably berlin.

Two reasons: Tokyo would have given the Japanese a lot bigger shock; and, even though germany was out of the war by this point, it seems a shame they never got any "a-bomb" goodness, considering they by far were responsible for more deaths.

I also think germany should have got some, because it has become increasingly apparent to me, from the attitude of certain individuals here on NS, that the germans did not learn a sufficient lesson without the A-bomb being used and it is too late now.

(And for those of you who are slow, this post is a joke.)

The 300,000 was bad, but by far a better result than the alternative.
It was better than an invasion, but i maintain there were various other options by that point and that the bombings were unnecessary.

It was better than an invasion, but i maintain there were various other options by that point and that the bombings were unnecessary.
No other alternative would work. The only thing other than an invasion that was possible was a blockade, but that would kill millions.

Well I would have chosen tokyo, and somewhere in germany, probably berlin.

Two reasons: Tokyo would have given the Japanese a lot bigger shock; and, even though germany was out of the war by this point, it seems a shame they never got any "a-bomb" goodness, considering they by far were responsible for more deaths.

I also think germany should have got some, because it has become increasingly apparent to me, from the attitude of certain individuals here on NS, that the germans did not learn a sufficient lesson without the A-bomb being used and it is too late now.

(And for those of you who are slow, this post is a joke.)

The US did have ONE LAST BOMB and the were three hours from nuking Tokyo. It would have taken months to enrich more uranium or plutonium, and if the Japanese still held our we would have had to invade.

Ok, there are a number of new books on US plans to invade Japan, the best is called Downfall.

In summary, estimates at the time expected 250,000 US casualties in the invasion and conquest of southern Kyushu and central Honshu. Japanese casualties (based on previous fighting) would have been nearly 90% of committed troops. There were 350,000 Japanese troops in Kyushu and about 500,000 around Tokyo (quality varied a LOT).

Nearly 2 million Japanese civilians lived in southern Kyushu, nearly 10 million around Tokyo. In the Okinawa campaign, nearly 100,000 islanders died out of nearly 300,000, the same probably would have happened there and that is what American planners expected.

Nearly a million Japanese civilians had died to date from US bombing.

Japan was on starvation rations or worse at the time of the surrender due to blockade and general economic collapse.

Japanese plans called for executing ALL Allied POWs to prevent rescue (and the instances of this are very well documented)

Nearly 400,000 Allied civilians and POWs were in Japanese detention camps with an appalling (even by German concentration camp standards) death rate.

So, we are are looking at well over 2 million people or more dying in the Invasion of Japan.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300,000 people between them both (including long term radiation deaths)

Estimates are that several million Japanese would have died of starvation during the winter of 1945 - 46

the Invasion of Honshu wasn't set to occur until April 1946

That doesnt even factor in all of the likely deaths in Southeast Asia (the British for one thing were going to invade Malaya the same time the US hit Japan), the hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese troops left isolated and starving on bypassed Pacific garrisons, and the list just barely starts there

The Atomic bombing were horrible, no question. But in the end, those people died to save countless millions more.

God forgive us all.

Was invasion necessary, probably not, but there was no reason to be sure of that at the time. The Japanese government attempted to arrange peace through Stalin (guess who failed to pass the word to the US?). Japanese comments due to a language screw up came across as imperiously ignoring the Yalta Declaration demanding surrender. So as far as the US could be certain, the war was going to last another year.

Theories about scaring the Soviets or that we nuked them because they were different from us have no solid evidence to support them. Make good conspiracy theories though as they cannot be disproved. May have been a bonus for some of the planners (feelings against the Japanese were high to say the least and worries about the Soviets were a factor in US policy, but mostly postwar)

I do believe that Japan sued for peace in '45.


I'm going to have to say no on this, simply because I don't believe in the murder of civilians.

It was better than an invasion, but i maintain there were various other options by that point and that the bombings were unnecessary.

And those would be....?

No other alternative would work. The only thing other than an invasion that was possible was a blockade, but that would kill millions.

The japanese government had already offered a deal of surrender a year in advance that would have sufficed. The US did not like its main term, which was that the emporer not be dethroned/tried for war crimes. Furthermore, the bomb could have been dropped in an unpopulated area of uninhabited island in nearby waters and feasibly have achieved similar results. Would have been better than dropping the bomb on a civilian city.

The US did have ONE LAST BOMB and the were three hours from nuking Tokyo. It would have taken months to enrich more uranium or plutonium, and if the Japanese still held our we would have had to invade.

Bah, yet again the germans get off scot free.

I do believe that Japan sued for peace in '45.


I'm going to have to say no on this, simply because I don't believe in the murder of civilians.
They did not sue for peace and were even calling to fight more after the 1st bombing. in fact, they almost had a coup to overthrow the emperor before he surrendered after Nagasaki. The coup failed because some members of it were killed in the last bombing mission of WWII.

By not dropping the bomb you kill more civilians.

your all wrong, world war ii didn't have millions of cassualties, for any battle or campaign for U.S. soldiers. we didn't even lose a million soldiers during the entire war. there were 292,131 u.s. soldiers that died, that is not even remotely close to a million people. so there would not have been a million casualties if we would have invaded japan. the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. the civilian death rate would also have been much lower than the deather rate of the atom bombs, since the u.s. is usually careful with civillians with the exception of the dresden massacre.

your all wrong, world war ii didn't have millions of cassualties, for any battle or campaign for U.S. soldiers. we didn't even lose a million soldiers during the entire war. there were 292,131 u.s. soldiers that died, that is not even remotely close to a million people. so there would not have been a million casualties if we would have invaded japan. the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. the civilian death rate would also have been much lower than the deather rate of the atom bombs, since the u.s. is usually careful with civillians with the exception of the dresden massacre.
DUring WWII there was no precision and millions more were killed in Japan by regular bombings than nukes. The reason is the bombs were dumb iron bombs that were carried by the wind and would most certaintly kill civilians. The US would lose more troops fighting Japan as it is hard to invade multiple islands and especially Japan since they never surrendered. (only a few hundred Japanese soldiers survived the battle of Iwo Jima.) The results would be similar in battles during an invasion.

Ok, there are a number of new books on US plans to invade Japan, the best is called Downfall.

In summary, estimates at the time expected 250,000 US casualties in the invasion and conquest of southern Kyushu and central Honshu. Japanese casualties (based on previous fighting) would have been nearly 90% of committed troops. There were 350,000 Japanese troops in Kyushu and about 500,000 around Tokyo (quality varied a LOT).

Nearly 2 million Japanese civilians lived in southern Kyushu, nearly 10 million around Tokyo. In the Okinawa campaign, nearly 100,000 islanders died out of nearly 300,000, the same probably would have happened there and that is what American planners expected.

Nearly a million Japanese civilians had died to date from US bombing.

Japan was on starvation rations or worse at the time of the surrender due to blockade and general economic collapse.

Japanese plans called for executing ALL Allied POWs to prevent rescue (and the instances of this are very well documented)

Nearly 400,000 Allied civilians and POWs were in Japanese detention camps with an appalling (even by German concentration camp standards) death rate.

So, we are are looking at well over 2 million people or more dying in the Invasion of Japan.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300,000 people between them both (including long term radiation deaths)

Estimates are that several million Japanese would have died of starvation during the winter of 1945 - 46

the Invasion of Honshu wasn't set to occur until April 1946

That doesnt even factor in all of the likely deaths in Southeast Asia (the British for one thing were going to invade Malaya the same time the US hit Japan), the hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese troops left isolated and starving on bypassed Pacific garrisons, and the list just barely starts there

The Atomic bombing were horrible, no question. But in the end, those people died to save countless millions more.

God forgive us all.

Was invasion necessary, probably not, but there was no reason to be sure of that at the time. The Japanese government attempted to arrange peace through Stalin (guess who failed to pass the word to the US?). Japanese comments due to a language screw up came across as imperiously ignoring the Yalta Declaration demanding surrender. So as far as the US could be certain, the war was going to last another year.

Theories about scaring the Soviets or that we nuked them because they were different from us have no solid evidence to support them. Make good conspiracy theories though as they cannot be disproved. May have been a bonus for some of the planners (feelings against the Japanese were high to say the least and worries about the Soviets were a factor in US policy, but mostly postwar)

by the way, the US did have one other weapon, and the next target was going to be Kokora (which due to bad weather escaped Nagasaki's fate)

Tokyo was never a target, we needed the government to survive to surrender and we knew it. Thankfully Kyoto was taken off the target list.

They did not sue for peace and were even calling to fight more after the 1st bombing. in fact, they almost had a coup to overthrow the emperor before he surrendered after Nagasaki. The coup failed because some members of it were killed in the last bombing mission of WWII.

By not dropping the bomb you kill more civilians.


A July 1945 entry in President Truman's handwritten diary refers to at least one telegram from Emporer Hirohito requesting peace. From Truman's diary, 7/18/45, recalling a dinner with Winston Churchill: "Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace." A 8/3/45 entry in the journal of Walter Brown, an aide to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, states that Truman and his aides "agreed Japs looking for peace."

Japan did indeed sue for peace, and the US did indeed drop the bombs, not because of some horrifying math that argues doing so may have maybe potentially saved thousands of people. we don't know what would have happened, because the decision was very consciously made not to go that route, and instead to use the most destructive weaponry in the world on civilians, because doing so would end the war before the USSR would have a chance to enter the pacific arena, and vie for a share in the postwar administration of japan.

hiroshima and nagasaki were the first casualties of the cold war.

My birthday is on Hiroshima Memorial Day...
Shweet mine is on Nagasaki's.
....well not shweet- hmmm.
yeah... :headbang:

You started the thread with two questions.

"Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable targets?"

Yes they were.

The poll says, "Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on them?"

I voted no.

your all wrong, world war ii didn't have millions of cassualties, for any battle or campaign for U.S. soldiers. we didn't even lose a million soldiers during the entire war. there were 292,131 u.s. soldiers that died, that is not even remotely close to a million people. so there would not have been a million casualties if we would have invaded japan. the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. the civilian death rate would also have been much lower than the deather rate of the atom bombs, since the u.s. is usually careful with civillians with the exception of the dresden massacre.

From the Book "How to Make War"

current revised estimates of the death toll of World War Two are now about 100 million (Chinese and Soviet death tolls have been adjusted for accuracy since the 1990s)

American death toll was under 400,000
Chinese Death toll topped 30 million
Soviet Death toll was similar to Chinese death toll

Were they justifiable targets?

No because they were not militatry targets, they were CIVILLIAN targets. In the rules of War you cannot attack Civillians on purpose!

Japan did indeed sue for peace, and the US did indeed drop the bombs, not because of some horrifying math that argues doing so may have maybe potentially saved thousands of people. we don't know what would have happened, because the decision was very consciously made not to go that route, and instead to use the most destructive weaponry in the world on civilians, because doing so would end the war before the USSR would have a chance to enter the pacific arena, and vie for a share in the postwar administration of japan.

hiroshima and nagasaki were the first casualties of the cold war.

as I mentioned, that theory has a long life and little proof.. dropping the bombs was about saving American lives, no doubt, and ending the war NOW, without question, whatever it took. Japanese lives were secondary, once again, now doubt. But the Tokyo Fire raids a few months earlier resulted in the deaths of over 130,000 people in one night as 300 American bombers dropped bombs on Tokyo with the intent of burning the entire city down.

It burnt out nearly a quarter of the city in a few hours.

Japan did indeed sue for peace, and the US did indeed drop the bombs, not because of some horrifying math that argues doing so may have maybe potentially saved thousands of people. we don't know what would have happened, because the decision was very consciously made not to go that route, and instead to use the most destructive weaponry in the world on civilians, because doing so would end the war before the USSR would have a chance to enter the pacific arena, and vie for a share in the postwar administration of japan.

hiroshima and nagasaki were the first casualties of the cold war.

This idea represents the most common reasoning in historical study. Of course, high-school teachers tend to react slowly (if at all), especially if their political slant prohibits them. I've met a couple of them whose patriotism affected the way they teach.

The maker of the atomic bomb for the US saw the test denation for the first time. (The first test denonation) and when he saw it, the first thing he said was "Oh my God, what have I done?"

The maker of the atomic bomb for the US saw the test denation for the first time. (The first test denonation) and when he saw it, the first thing he said was "Oh my God, what have I done?"

No he didn't.

Robert Oppenheimer, the man who is often credited as the "leader" of the US atomic weapons project quoted a line from Hindu Scripture: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." Oppenheimer, a fan of Hindu literature, later admitted the moment was somewhat contrived and the quote had been on his mind all day, even before the test detontation.

That's a little different to "Oh my god, what have I done?"

Stop listening to your "Dad" .

The maker of the atomic bomb for the US saw the test denation for the first time. (The first test denonation) and when he saw it, the first thing he said was "Oh my God, what have I done?"
So did Nobel when he tested dynamite. However, what's really your point?
(edit: assuming he was paraphrasing)

No he didn't.

Robert Oppenheimer, the man who is often credited as the "leader" of the US atomic weapons project quoted a line from Hindu Scripture: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." Oppenheimer, a fan of Hindu literature, later admitted the moment was somewhat contrived and the quote had been on his mind all day, even before the test detontation.

That's a little different to "Oh my god, what have I done?"

Stop listening to your "Dad" .

Look jerk, I bet you are nothing more than a Middle School punk who would probably run away to Canada if your country called you to service. I didn't get it from dad, I got it from the History Channel.

So did Nobel when he tested dynamite. However, what's really your point?
(edit: assuming he was paraphrasing)

My point was that he knew what the plan was, and he obviously objected to it because the A-bomb was used to kill CIVILLIANS. I mean when is it ok to Kill civillians, to save your own countrymen? I mean we're not talking about Japanese militatry personal. We're not talking about soilders. We are talking about Mothers, Fathers, Childrens, Aunt, Uncle, Grandparents, who doesn't have a damn thing to do with the War!

However, take a look beyond the immidate happenings.

Now we have this wonderful nuclear diplomacy, in which we say "I have a nuke, and you don't. I r0xx0rs your b0xx0rs. You have no chance, make your time"

If we hadn't established this "nuclear diplomacy" and had instead invaded (with the higher casualties etc), MacArthur probably would have gotten away with dropping 30 nukes on the border between Korea and China and killing literally millions of people both from the blasts and the immense fallout.

Look jerk, I bet you are nothing more than a Middle School punk who would probably run away to Canada if your country called you to service. I didn't get it from dad, I got it from the History Channel.
There really isn't a need for this. Stick with issues and leave the personal attacks alone.

My point was that he knew what the plan was, and he obviously objected to it because the A-bomb was used to kill CIVILLIANS. I mean when is it ok to Kill civillians, to save your own countrymen? I mean we're not talking about Japanese militatry personal. We're not talking about soilders. We are talking about Mothers, Fathers, Childrens, Aunt, Uncle, Grandparents, who doesn't have a damn thing to do with the War!
Prior the the 20th century (well, still to this day but we'll get into that later), there were 2 ways to win a war.... wipe out the opposing soldiers (unlikely, but it happened) or break their will to fight. As wars were often seen as life and death struggles against the forces of evil, the means often justified the ends (rightly or wrongly, I won't argue either). Killing large numbers of civilians would very quickly break just about anyone's will.

Only with the advent of WMD's (conventional or C/B/N) has the ethics of genocide come into play. Everyone now generally agrees that to target civilians with military operations is wrong. But that wasn't always the case. It was hoped that the sight of such mass destruction and the horror it caused would cause the end of the war, and hopefully to prevent future war.

The maker of the atomic bomb for the US saw the test denation for the first time. (The first test denonation) and when he saw it, the first thing he said was "Oh my God, what have I done?"

I am afraid that is a myth... the History Channel is not the most authoritative of sources... your average television production assistant, even for the History Channel, does not have a degree in history.

The quote from Hindu Literature is accurate....

The japanese government had already offered a deal of surrender a year in advance that would have sufficed. The US did not like its main term, which was that the emporer not be dethroned/tried for war crimes. Furthermore, the bomb could have been dropped in an unpopulated area of uninhabited island in nearby waters and feasibly have achieved similar results. Would have been better than dropping the bomb on a civilian city.

There is no, none, not a bit, of evidence that the Japanese offered a surrender deal in 1944... so what is your source?

The decision was made to keep the Hirohito on the throne was made by Roosevelt and his principal advisors prior to the invasion of Okinawa.. sadly it was not communicated to the Japanese (would it have made a difference, hard to say, one of those great what ifs)

the suggestion was made by several of the Manhatten Project scientists for demonstrating the bomb on an uninhabited area. It was rejected for a host of reasons, some logistical, but mainly because it would tip our hand without guaranteeing the Japanese would see the logic of surrender.

This sounds bad, but basically, Hiroshima was a built up area, full of civilians and troops (Hiroshima was the headquarters of a corps sized headquarters, an area army, and two infantry divisions), was undamaged, and the effect could be fully demonstrated

It was determined this would be a more powerful demonstration.

Nagasaki was hit because the Japanese STILL hadnt surrendered yet, even though Hiroshima's effects were realized (and we knew that they knew) and the Soviets had entered the war. It was felt the Japanese didn't realize we had more than one and would continue to use them.

Toland, probably the best of the historians on the Japanese government in World War 2 (read his book Rising Sun) is convinced that Nagasaki was what brought around sufficient numbers of generals and admirals to offset the true fanatics and ensure a surrender could happen.

After all, its hard to fight a decisive battle when the Americans can nuke your troops at will. (even though we couldn't but they didn't know that)

New Shiron, don't be so quick with your dismissal of the Japanese surrender plan.

http://www.ww2pacific.com/surrender.html points to a meeting before the second bomb being dropped about the possibility of surrender.

Others more knowledgable than I, Im sure, will post other more compelling sources pointing to the possibility of Japanese surrender prior to the bombing of either 2 cities.

There is no, none, not a bit, of evidence that the Japanese offered a surrender deal in 1944... so what is your source?
I agree. No proof of a surrender deal in '44.

In '45, however, there's Truman's journal ("Discussed Manhatan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."), and a journal entry from an aide, Walter Brown (state that Truman and his aides "agreed Japs looking for peace."), among other things.

New Shiron, don't be so quick with your dismissal of the Japanese surrender plan.

http://www.ww2pacific.com/surrender.html points to a meeting before the second bomb being dropped about the possibility of surrender.

Others more knowledgable than I, Im sure, will post other more compelling sources pointing to the possibility of Japanese surrender prior to the bombing of either 2 cities.

I didn't dismiss the idea of Japanese surrender without a nuclear strike. But most evidence indicates that it, along with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the general collapse of the Japanese wartime economy and destruction of the fleet were all part of it. The bombs were the final nail that made the decision possible by Hirohito without triggering either civil war or his own death or imprisonment and Hirohito was the only one who could get a surrender to stick by Japan.

The other point is, Truman and his advisors, Attlee and his advisors and the Australian government (at that is pretty much the main players) were not convinced of the sincerity of Japanese surender efforts, and were convinced that the Army would not allow a surrender. The coup attempt the day before Hirohitos broadcast would seem to bear out that concern.

Since we have information that they did not, and more importantly, can objectively look at it without having to bear the crushing burden of dealing with the decisions to be made about the conduct of the war, I think we cannot truly judge them failry. Trumans decision to launch nuclear strikes is justified based on the information his government had at the time.

Incidently, General Marshal and Macarthur both weren't happy about the decision to use the bomb (although Marshal had better information on its affects). Kind of ironic Macarthur wanted to use it in Korea isn't it.

Good link though, one of many. The US Army home page has a good set of links to the US Army official history (well worth looking at for military historians). John Toland is the best historian on the Japanese political decisions during the war, he lived there many years, married a Japanese woman, spoke the language and his books are exhaustive to say the least and full of interviews of the primary decision makers (who survived the war and post war trials). Read Rising Sun and anything else he wrote (several books in all)

Look jerk, I bet you are nothing more than a Middle School punk who would probably run away to Canada if your country called you to service. I didn't get it from dad, I got it from the History Channel.

Regardless of Lacadaemon's age and willingness to serve in the military, he's right, you're wrong. He did not say, "Oh my god, what have I done."

I agree. No proof of a surrender deal in '44.

In '45, however, there's Truman's journal ("Discussed Manhatan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."), and a journal entry from an aide, Walter Brown (state that Truman and his aides "agreed Japs looking for peace."), among other things.

The problem with the peace proposals in 1945 is that they were by the civilian government, headed by the Emperor, and not the military. Had the civilian government attempted to broker a peace treaty with the US, it was a virtual certainty that the military would have staged a coup. The atomic bombs provided the proper shock to the military leaders to make them accept the Emperor's claim that Japan could not defeat the US.

I also believe that those two cities were justifiable targets, but bombing them was uncalled for. This decision breaches moral statutes. Killing civilians to forcefully coerce the Japanese government to surrender is just plain wrong. Wasn't there another option of showing nuclear capabilites at a remote area?

"Very few historians believe the bombing of Nagasaki, the second city, can be justified on any grounds. Moreover, even those who defend the use of the atomic bomb in general often avoid the central point made by General Marshall that if a bomb were used, it should first be used on a strictly military target such as a naval base. Then, if such a bombing did not produce the desired results, a clear warning should be given so civilians could be evacuated from the cities before another bombing. And only if this did not work, should an inhabited city be bombed.

None of this occurred, of course. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were important military targets. The bombs were used without explicit warning and targeted in a manner designed to create shock by destroying as many workers’ homes as possible. It is conceivable, given all the facts we now have in our possession, that some strictly military use and targeting of the bomb, as Marshall urged, can be defended. But there can be no legitimate military or moral defense of the decision to use the atomic bomb mainly against the women, children, and elderly civilians who were left behind in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when most of the young men had gone to war."

Source is from Encarta Encyclopedia
Author of the article:
Gar Alperovitz is Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy in the department of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is the author of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1995) and Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965).

Hiroshima was a reasonable pre invasion target.. it had 2 infantry divisions, an army headquarters and was the headquarters of the northern Kyushu military district

Nagasaki was an alternate target and was hit because the first target had too much cloud cover

Marshal may have been right. To bad we will never know. I will stick with Toland, Dunnigan and Walter Lord, among others, and I am not entirely convinced the revisionist historians of the late 1950s and early 1960s are right in this case.

They also did not have access to post war (stuff released 25 years after the war and 50 years after the war) classified material. Many historians of the period you are quoting from were also noticeably leftist and prone to criticize US policy in general. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is not the only point of view.

This in itself justifies the unnecessary atomic bombings of both cities...especially Nagasaki. One was enough, but apparently the US didn't stop for one. I also read from a source that the US was also trying to impress the USSR through its nuclear capabilites.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the US, its just that I believe those acts are just horrible.

"Very few historians believe the bombing of Nagasaki, the second city, can be justified on any grounds. Moreover, even those who defend the use of the atomic bomb in general often avoid the central point made by General Marshall that if a bomb were used, it should first be used on a strictly military target such as a naval base. Then, if such a bombing did not produce the desired results, a clear warning should be given so civilians could be evacuated from the cities before another bombing. And only if this did not work, should an inhabited city be bombed.

None of this occurred, of course. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were important military targets. The bombs were used without explicit warning and targeted in a manner designed to create shock by destroying as many workers’ homes as possible. It is conceivable, given all the facts we now have in our possession, that some strictly military use and targeting of the bomb, as Marshall urged, can be defended. But there can be no legitimate military or moral defense of the decision to use the atomic bomb mainly against the women, children, and elderly civilians who were left behind in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when most of the young men had gone to war."

Source is from Encarta Encyclopedia
Author of the article:
Gar Alperovitz is Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy in the department of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is the author of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (1995) and Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965).

by the way, your history instructor will not accept a quote from an encyclopedia at the High School or College level, nor would I.

Encyclopedias are too generalized for a mass audience, and while Encarta will quote one source, Britannica will quote another. Just because it is in the Encyclopedia doesn't make it authoritative, just a convienent immediate source.

Historiography (the study of the study of history) is generally unkind to high school text books and encyclopedias for just that reason.

Well, its actually an article within the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia featured the article written by that person. So, the writers of the encyclopedia had no bearing on it.

the Tokyo Fire raids a few months earlier resulted in the deaths of over 130,000 people in one night as 300 American bombers dropped bombs on Tokyo with the intent of burning the entire city down.

It burnt out nearly a quarter of the city in a few hours.
At last! Someone who has heard of the fire raids!
The nukes were *insignificant* compared to firebombing. Less destructive, less cruel, with a much lower kill ratio. If you're upset with the nukes, go look at what the fire raids did. Then you will have something to be horrified at.

And it's a bit rich to complain about violating the rules of war when Japan refused to follow them (despite having done so in both the Russo-Japanese war and WWI).

There can never be any argument to justify mass murder.

There can never be any argument to justify mass murder.
What if it is to stop an even larger mass murder? Would we be wrong by default by allowing that to happen through inaction?

What if it is to stop an even larger mass murder? Would we be wrong by default by allowing that to happen through inaction?
If the assumption that not committing the mass murder would lead to even greater mass murder is wrong, then yes.

they didn't serve a stratigic value but a moral value

without them most historians believe we would have had to invade Japan and that really wouldn't have been fun, for us or the Japanese

so in conclution dropping the bomb was more than justifiable, while it cost thousands of lives it saved millions (not to mention the material costs of the invasion and re-building and even more beat up Japan)

Absolutely. Around 100,000 Japanese lives was better that losing millions of Americans and tens of millions of Japanese.

If the assumption that not committing the mass murder would lead to even greater mass murder is wrong, then yes.


I happen to agree … maybe reading too much Asimov with his first law and all (the through INACTION part specifically)

But I just wanted to point out I meant generally not in the specific … there are arguments whether this usage was stopping anything at all.

I was just point a flaw in making absolutes (which are by and large wrong at times) specially based off of emotion’s or morals (in this case saying murder … specifically mass murder is bad (very valid point) but saying it is ALWAYS bad usually leads to a flaw in most logic … hence the if it is preventing an even greater evil)

So many writers over time have covered this … so many discussions … how will we ever decide a set of moral certitudes (I believe it is impossible)

Arguing about it was justifable (or not) doesn't change the fact the US was first nation to use the nuclear weapon during a war.

Arguing about it was justifable (or not) doesn't change the fact the US was first nation to use the nuclear weapon during a war.

Yes that is true … might be because we developed it first (into a usable weapon form) … if someone else had they (more then likely) would have been the first one to use it.

Well considering that Japan just attacked us for no real reason. I think that we were justified. There wouldn't have been a second bombing if the Japanese had surrenderd.

Yes that is true … might be because we developed it first (into a usable weapon form) … if someone else had they (more then likely) would have been the first one to use it.

Well, them Russians stole it off the US! The Nazis were working on some project but their programme was not so advanced.

Debate over the decision to drop the bombs

Even before the event, the dropping of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was controversial.

Opposition to use of atomic bombs

* The Manhattan Project had originally been conceived as a counter to Nazi Germany's atomic bomb program, and with the defeat of Germany, several scientists working on the project felt that the United States should not be the first to use such weapons. One of the prominent critics of the bombings was Albert Einstein. Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

* Their use has been called barbaric since, besides destroying a military base and a military industrial center, several hundreds of thousands civilians were killed. Others argue that the Japanese industrial heart, operated mostly by civilians, shared as much culpability as Japanese Army regulars.

* Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [4] (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm) The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) (all also from [5] (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm)); Major General Curtis LeMay ([6] (http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog23/feature/)); and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (both from [7] (http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm)).

* Others contend that Japan had been trying to surrender for at least two months, but the US refused by insisting on an unconditional surrender—which they did not get even after the bombing, the bone of contention being retention of the Emperor.[8] (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html) In fact, while several diplomats favored surrender, the leaders of the Japanese military were committed to fighting a 'Decisive Battle' on Kyushu, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward—all of which the Americans knew from reading decrypted Japanese communications. The Japanese government never did decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme Council was still split, with the hardliners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials, and no occupation. Only the direct intervention of the Emperor ended the dispute, and even after that there was a serious risk of a military coup.

* Some have argued that the Soviet Union's switch from friendly neutral to enemy might have been enough to convince the Japanese military of the need to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (plus some provision for the emperor). In the event, the decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands was known, but had the war continued, the Soviets would have been able to invade Hokkaido well before the Allied invasion of Kyushu.

* Many critics believe that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union.

* It has been argued that, under the Nuremberg Principles and the Hague Convention, then in force, the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations on a large scale is a crime against humanity and a war crime. Willful killing of civilians, wanton destruction of cities, and use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation) were defined as war crimes by international law of the time, which counters the argument that conventional bombings of civilians also cost many lifes. Some people consider the bombings the largest acts of terrorism in history. One officer of the International Court of Justice has stated: "Nuclear weapons can be expected—in the present state of scientific development at least—to cause indiscriminate victims among combatants and non-combatants alike, as well as unnecessary suffering among both categories… Until scientists are able to develop a 'clean' nuclear weapon which would distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, nuclear weapons will clearly have indiscriminate effects and constitute an absolute challenge to humanitarian law." [9] (http://www.bomspotting.be/en/klacht_en.php)

* The decision to bomb Nagasaki only a few days after Hiroshima raises separate issues. In his semi-autobiographical novel Timequake, Kurt Vonnegut said that while the Hiroshima bomb may have saved the lives of his friends in the U.S. armed forces, Nagasaki still proved that the United States was capable of senseless cruelty.

Support for use of atomic bombs

Supporters of the bombing concede that although the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiqués as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the Atomic bomb.

While Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, the civilian leadership could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire on its own. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Army, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The battle of Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. Nearly 200,000 Japanese were killed in the most bloody battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan’s final surrender. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man, an order which it carried out. Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimum looses.

After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Yalta Proclamation.

According to many Japanese historians, including Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto and Kazutoshi Hando, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of emperor Hirohito's closest advisors stated that "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war". Hisatsune Sakomizu the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945 called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war". According to these historians and others the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagisaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the Atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29’s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.

Supporters of the bombing also argue that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. The conventional bombardment and blockade were killing tens of thousands each week in Japan, directly and indirectly, and the US Navy's 'Operation Starvation' was aptly named. Also, as a result of the war, noncombatants were dieing throughout Asia at a rate of ~200,000 per month. Supporters of the bombing point to an order given by General Tojo, before his resignation as premier in July of 1944, that all Allied POW's, numbering over 100,000, to be executed at the first sign of an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Well, them Russians stole it off the US! The Nazis were working on some project but their programme was not so advanced.


That’s what I mean … you pointed out we used it first … I pointed out we had it first

If we hadn’t had it first … then we might not have been the first to use it… that was my only point.

(Specifically BECAUSE the Germans and the Russians were developing/acquiring it … SOMEONE would have used it … otherwise having it is like an empty threat … “We have this new shiny bomb that can kick our asses … trust us we do … we just don’t want to use it”)

That’s what I mean … you pointed out we used it first … I pointed out we had it first

If we hadn’t had it first … then we might not have been the first to use it… that was my only point.

(Specifically BECAUSE the Germans and the Russians were developing/acquiring it … SOMEONE would have used it … otherwise having it is like an empty threat … “We have this new shiny bomb that can kick our asses … trust us we do … we just don’t want to use it”)

and the US and French use the Pacific Islands as cannon fodder. The British nuke Australia with their tests. The Russians and Chinese irradiate their own people in testing. :)

gigatron provided the summary of all of the arguements for and against the use

I will stick with the decision that the nuclear strikes were justified

in the defense of the arguement on poisoned weapons, the effects of radiation were severely underestimated by the creators of the weapon, and radiation effects were still be underestimated well into the 1960s by everyone conducted post war atmospheric testing

I say we did the right thing dropping the bomb. I know, everyone will call me a nuclear nut and crazy, but hear me out.Had we not dropped the bomb, we would have INVADED JAPAN and the results would have been catastrophic. It would have resulted in over a million casulties on both sides. If the invasion failed, the US would have done stratigic bombing and a blockade that would have starved the populace. Also, the USSR had plans to invade Japan, and had they gone through with the plan, Japan would have turned into a divided post-war country like Germany. Thus, it was better to lose hunderds of thousands, instead of millions.

i want to know why was it necessary to bomb hiroshima and nagashiki surely once was enough to demonstrate the power of the bomb

i want to know why was it necessary to bomb hiroshima and hiroshima surely once was enough to demonstrate the power of the bomb
It wasn't enough.. cuz they didn't surrender after the first one... someone told them we couldn't have enough materials for 2.

mm.. just off topic a bit..

the only reason really for the germans not haveing their own A-bomb by 1944 even if they had been working on it for far longer than the allies was that the british SAS commandos on more than one occasion had sabvotaged and destroyed the road and rail links and equipment in Nazi nuclear facilities in Norway. And destroyed the Heavy water products and plant.. if it were not for there actions god knows how the world would have been like today..
heroes of WW2 no one really knew

1 was enough, why is that not in the poll?Someone didnt think this through before they posted poll. Let me guess was it a history homework?

1 was enough, why is that not in the poll?Someone didnt think this through before they posted poll. Let me guess was it a history homework?

One was not enough. Japan refused to surrender after the first one, because they were certain that we could not have two bombs of that destructiveness. Two almost wasn't enough. We were days, if not hours, from using a third atomic weapon before Japan surrendered.

No other alternative would work. The only thing other than an invasion that was possible was a blockade, but that would kill millions.

Colonel LeMay was in command of a firebombing campaign against Japanese cities. By early June 1945, LeMay's bombers were quickly running out of targets. Therefore, it was decided, from the beginning of November, to lower the target criteria and start bombing cities of at least 30,000 inhabitants. This would result in 180 new targets. Had the firebombing proceeded with its usual efficiency, this meant 5.4 million casualties (of which confirmed deaths constitute one fifth)

I did a project on this matter last semester - in short, the various projected casualty rates that the American commanders dealt with provided them with a very compelling argument for the bomb. The notion of more sinister reasons for using the bombs did not appear until the Vietnam war, most likely the result of a general mistrust in authorities.

good points Gorkha, although Lemay was 3 star general at the time he assumed command of the 21st Bomber Command (the B29s bombing Japan)

One was not enough. Japan refused to surrender after the first one, because they were certain that we could not have two bombs of that destructiveness. Two almost wasn't enough. We were days, if not hours, from using a third atomic weapon before Japan surrendered.

Actually, the plan was to simply use the bombs as soon as they were finished. The third bomb wasn't expected to be ready until early November, though. But even then, Japan's surrender would be far from certain. Leading military personnel attempted a coup d'etat, trying to prevent the emperor from broadcasting his decision to surrender on national radio. Had they succeeded, they would, in their own words, "fight the invaders from caves in the mountains"

Btw, it would be incorrect to claim the nuclear bombs were the sole reason Japan surrendered. Rather it was a combination of the imminent general collapse of the Japanese infrastructure, the bombs and, to some extent, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

Nagasaki was a legitimate military target, a port and industrial center.
Hiroshima was just civilians; big difference.

But the bomb should have been dropped on legitimate targets as opposed to not being dropped at all. Tarawa and Iwo Jima showed what the remainder of the fighting in the Pacific would be like, otherwise: bloody, vicious, desperate, with huge losses (yes, more than with the boms) for Japan as well as the US.

There would have been house-to-house fighting in the Japanese homeland eventually. It would not have been pretty. Many, many civilian noncombatants would have died.

Bah, yet again the germans get off scot free.

The Krauts surrendered in May of that year, we didn't test the A-Bomb until June. Think long and hard about this, May, June, May, June, May, June. Yesssssssss! That's it!

The third bomb wasn't expected to be ready until early November, though.
Btw, it would be incorrect to claim the nuclear bombs were the sole reason Japan surrendered. Rather it was a combination of the imminent general collapse of the Japanese infrastructure, the bombs and, to some extent, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.


Actually, Truman was preparring to issue the command to drop the third A-Bomb on Tokyo, when he heard the radio broadcast from Tokyo stating the Japanese surrender. The second part of your statement is true, though.

[QUOTE=Tomzilla]I say we did the right thing dropping the bomb. I know, everyone will call me a nuclear nut and crazy, but hear me out.Had we not dropped the bomb, we would have INVADED JAPAN and the results would have been catastrophic. It would have resulted in over a million casulties on both sides. If the invasion failed, the US would have done stratigic bombing and a blockade that would have starved the populace. Also, the USSR had plans to invade Japan, and had they gone through with the plan, Japan would have turned into a divided post-war country like Germany. Thus, it was better to lose hunderds of thousands, instead of millions.[/QUO

That is something we will never know.

It was obviously right to drop the bomb: the real question is to whether or not we should have set it off :) Well, I am a history buff, and I am proud to say that no alternatives would have killed fewer people. first: surround the island until they economically must give in. HA! Wake up. They would die easily rather than give in. Next: poison gas-already illegal, killing more.
invasion: hahaha, nest please. The Japanese wanted Peace. Sure they did. They did not. Come on, you do not understand the mentality of these people. THe bomb was right. Wake up and see the mushroom cloud.

Tomzilla, rong. Tokyo already foom from firebomb. third bomb not go there.

Actually, Truman was preparring to issue the command to drop the third A-Bomb on Tokyo, when he heard the radio broadcast from Tokyo stating the Japanese surrender. The second part of your statement is true, though.

He may have been preparing to issue the command concerning the detonation of a bomb over Tokyo as soon as possible, but as I recall, Truman says in his memoirs, that the third bomb wasn't expected to be ready until early November that year.
That being said, it is possible that a "you may fire when ready" order could speed up the contruction process.

Tomzilla, rong. Tokyo already foom from firebomb. third bomb not go there.

that may be my favorite quote in a long time :D

he is right though, there wasn't much left of Tokyo to nuke by August 1945

It was obviously right to drop the bomb: the real question is to whether or not we should have set it off :) Well, I am a history buff, and I am proud to say that no alternatives would have killed fewer people. first: surround the island until they economically must give in. HA! Wake up. They would die easily rather than give in. Next: poison gas-already illegal, killing more.
invasion: hahaha, nest please. The Japanese wanted Peace. Sure they did. They did not. Come on, you do not understand the mentality of these people. THe bomb was right. Wake up and see the mushroom cloud.

I suppose by the morals of WWII it was the right thing to do. European cities were devestated by years of bombing, killing many, many civilians. I believe we are questoning it now is because our morals have changed. Dropping a nuclear bomb now better have a DAMN GOOD EXCUSE BEHIND IT!!! Having the honor of the only country to have used the bomb to begin with.

Most of the arguments for on this thread seem to involve preventing a possibly disastrous invasion. So, could you tell me why we attacked two largely civilian targets, instead of, say, a military installation?

Most of the arguments for on this thread seem to involve preventing a possibly disastrous invasion. So, could you tell me why we attacked two largely civilian targets, instead of, say, a military installation?

I believe Truman wanted to have a huge pschological effect on Japan. Blowing away cities must have been seen as quicker than going for the military? Nagasaki I believe had a naval port nearby also. Justification is easy to come by then.

invasion: hahaha, nest please. The Japanese wanted Peace. Sure they did. They did not. Come on, you do not understand the mentality of these people. THe bomb was right. Wake up and see the mushroom cloud.
Excuse me- These people? That is what we are to you?

Watch your tongue.
If you were the history buff you had claimed to be, you would know that the Japanese government had essentially proposed a terms of surrender. THe US refused; they wanted an unconditional terms of surrender, and the japanese government wanted to retain the Emporer. So the war dragged on needlessly for another year, and in the end the Emporer was still retained.

Thus far as I know the Japanese were ready to surrender. However they rejected the demand of an "unconditional surrender". They wanted to protect the Tenno Hirohito. After the two bombs that didn´t change by the way.
Japanese surrendered under the condition that the Tenno remains untouched.
He remained in his position - which was reduced to a ceremonial role - till his death in 1989.

So, Japan in contrast to Germany did not surrender unconditionally, it surrendered under one condition.

Most of the arguments for on this thread seem to involve preventing a possibly disastrous invasion. So, could you tell me why we attacked two largely civilian targets, instead of, say, a military installation?

It was to kill the Emperor and any military commanders that were still alive and thus force the Japanese to surrender.

Thus far as I know the Japanese were ready to surrender. However they rejected the demand of an "unconditional surrender". They wanted to protect the Tenno Hirohito. After the two bombs that didn´t change by the way.
Japanese surrendered under the condition that the Tenno remains untouched.
He remained in his position - which was reduced to a ceremonial role - till his death in 1989.

So, Japan in contrast to Germany did not surrender unconditionally, it surrendered under one condition.
plus the americans didn't want the emperor dethroned either, it would have created too much commotion and made the occupation impossible. Good thing the emperor (not so political as one would think) was wise and saw this too.

It was to kill the Emperor and any military commanders that were still alive and thus force the Japanese to surrender.


Um so you would kill anyone that COULD surrender legally … real good plan

That was one of the reasons Tokyo did not get bombed … you need a government to surrender … otherwise with cultural mentality it would have just dissolved into an everyman for himself situation

Yeah real bright

plus the americans didn't want the emperor dethroned either, it would have created too much commotion and made the occupation impossible. Good thing the emperor (not so political as one would think) was wise and saw this too.
So why was an agreement not possible earlier?
I usually don´t go for conspiracy theories. But some argue that the US wanted to demonstrate the USSR the magnitude of their new weapon.
After all - it didn´t want the USSR to move even more forward in Korea or to Japan itself.

Most of the arguments for on this thread seem to involve preventing a possibly disastrous invasion. So, could you tell me why we attacked two largely civilian targets, instead of, say, a military installation?

In essential terms, there werent any large military installations that either could be targetted or were worth targeting.

The Japanese Navy had in August 1 functioning battleship, a few destroyers and a few submarines.... everything else had been sunk at sea or sunk in harbor or wrecked beyond repair

airfields were widely dispersed or had been bombed flat

the army had mostly dispersed to defensive positions and could not really be targeted with the technology of the day.

Hirishoma was a military target in that a Japanese Army (2 divisions plus assets) was stationed in the city

I have forgotten why Nagasaki was on the list but I am sure somebody either remembers or will look it up

So the few remaining unburnt cities were about all you could really target.

In essential terms, there werent any large military installations that either could be targetted or were worth targeting.

The Japanese Navy had in August 1 functioning battleship, a few destroyers and a few submarines.... everything else had been sunk at sea or sunk in harbor or wrecked beyond repair

airfields were widely dispersed or had been bombed flat

the army had mostly dispersed to defensive positions and could not really be targeted with the technology of the day.

Hirishoma was a military target in that a Japanese Army (2 divisions plus assets) was stationed in the city

I have forgotten why Nagasaki was on the list but I am sure somebody either remembers or will look it up

So the few remaining unburnt cities were about all you could really target.

The simple fact is that targeting civilian populations was completely kosher in WWII. Europe's cities were demolished and Tokyo, Dresden were firebombed killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. So even if Japan's military was pretty decimated bombing a pair of cities wasn't that big a deal. Not to mention that not enough time was given for the Japs to respond after Hiroshima. I believe there was a three day gap, and with the communications disaster that must have been going on, it was hardly enough time for them to surrender. Too bad, right?

The simple fact is that targeting civilian populations was completely kosher in WWII. Europe's cities were demolished and Tokyo, Dresden were firebombed killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. So even if Japan's military was pretty decimated bombing a pair of cities wasn't that big a deal. Not to mention that not enough time was given for the Japs to respond after Hiroshima. I believe there was a three day gap, and with the communications disaster that must have been going on, it was hardly enough time for them to surrender. Too bad, right?

valid points all.... Hamburg comes to mind as well, as does the firebombing of Tokyo etc

It was a Total War, and the only weapons not used where chemicals (well mostly, apparently the Italians used them against the Ethopians and the Japanese may have used them against the Chinese a few times).

Even biological weapons were used (Japanese tried using Bubonic plague against the Chinese with limited results)

It was the nastiest of all wars (at least so far)

Excuse me- These people? That is what we are to you?

Watch your tongue.
If you were the history buff you had claimed to be, you would know that the Japanese government had essentially proposed a terms of surrender. THe US refused; they wanted an unconditional terms of surrender, and the japanese government wanted to retain the Emporer. So the war dragged on needlessly for another year, and in the end the Emporer was still retained.

Yes, I've heard about this. It was, however, an offer for peace, not surrender. Second, the people who made this offer, while part of the government, belonged to the 'Doves' wing, at a time when the 'Hawks' effectively had the deciding say in the vast majority of wartime legislation.