NationStates Jolt Archive

I had always heard that the US use of Nuclear Weapons on Japan at the end of WWII was more to make a statement to the Russians than to end the war - but recently I read a book (Flyboys) that said (in so many words) that the Japanese govt, during the war, was more crazy than the Nazis by far, and that without the use of nuclear weapons there would have been huge casualties, both for the US and Japan.
I'm curious about what people think about three different issues:

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

Hoping for some enlightenment...

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?
Yes, Yes

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?
Yes, people are people. Why is a Japanese civilian more innocent than an American soldier whose orders is to fight on Japanese soil?

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?
They're just bombs. Bombs that cause a LOT of problems. They proved their effectiveness and set the standard for their future use when they were first used against the enemy Japan.

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

No, Japan was going to surrender in a few months anyway, plus the bombs were used on civilians.

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

No, the Military join up almost expecting to die, civilians should not be harmed in war, and i actually think with the setting up of the UN that was one of the first things they said.

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

An object is neither moral or immoral it is the use of the object. the use of a nuclear weapon to kill civilians is immoral.

the civilians were already dying by the thousands. if we had gone the route of total (non-nuke) victory, pretty much every japanese city would be leveled, many with phosphorous. those of you who know of dresdin will know the horrors of firebombing. no, killing civilians is never right, but so many more would have died. and japan's military would probably not have surrendered until we forced them to.
on the other hand, it is true that striking fear into russia was a deciding factor for truman. and that is deplorable. there is no answer to this question that will sit right with anyone who entertains human compassion.

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

Hoping for some enlightenment...

1. Yes

2. Yes, but you must remember that the casualties of a full scale invasion of Japan would have taken a far greater toll on civilians. The Japanese government had the civilians so afraid of the US soldiers that many would have fought us or commited suicide. I would recommend reading up on the pacific island hopping campaign and see what civilians on those islands had done durring the invasions. Pretty horrific stuff.

3. I don't beleave that use of a nuke is a moral issue. It is more of a practical one. Nukes are messy weapons. They make alot of land useless for a period of time, thus making land taken by the victors useless for awhile. Operation crossroad's use of bikini island has left the island uninhabitable to this day. If one is going to use a nuke in warfare, there had better be a damned good reason for it.

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

yes, it ws sort of terrible, for the most part the bomb killed most of it's victums instantly while the fire bombing wasn't as instantly fatal to the majority of it's victums.

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

war is hell and the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, if i'm not mistaken the U.S. military was expecting something on the order of 6 million casualties in the invasion of Japan, you do the math on that.

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

no weapon however terrible, is immoral, the only thing immoral is the intent behind the weapon, the old adage "Guns don't kill people, people do". As for reasonable use, look at nuclear power plants, if thats not what you meant then think of this, there will always be someone in the world wanting more than they should and willing to take it by any means necissary, ussually the only thing keeping them from taking, is the "Bigger Stick" of a nuke bombardment.

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified?

I think it was a bad idea because it made the likelyhood of cities getting atom bombed in the future higher.
Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?
More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities, but it's scarier in the sense that it makes killing vast numbers of people so much easier.

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is it morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

Assuming that was true, if I was the leader of America, I would use atomic weapons on Japan. But I'm not going to get bogged down into a discussion about if it's moral. But it's pretty silly to assume that the Japanese govt. would be unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons. The ability of the Japanese government to do anything was serverly limited by the time the atom bombs were dropped. They were already close to surrender. The atomic bombs could have been used against millitary targets. That would have been plenty scary to the Japanese goverment without the need to kill tens of thousands of civillians. One could have been detonated in Tokyo bay for demonstration purposes.

With hindsight, it is very clear that if a small fraction of the cost of the Manhatten project were devoted to submarine warefare, Japan would have collapsed much sooner.

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral?

Do I think it's a good idea to nuke people? No.

Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

Knocking incoming asteroids off course.

No, Japan was going to surrender in a few months anyway, plus the bombs were used on civilians.

Like Jalula first stated, the Japanese military leadership was crazy, and would have fought to the death if they were presented with a conventional battle. However, nuclear weapons presented no way for them to win. Immediate surrender was their only option.

No, the Military join up almost expecting to die, civilians should not be harmed in war, and i actually think with the setting up of the UN that was one of the first things they said.

Well, the Geneva convention set that up. But I don't know a single soldier today who joined up expecting to die. Even then, that wouldn't justify the throwing away of all those soldiers lives (not to mention the massive Japanese civilian cost).

An object is neither moral or immoral it is the use of the object. the use of a nuclear weapon to kill civilians is immoral.

The nuclear weapons were not used to kill civilians, they were used to end the greatest war this world has ever seen as rapidly as possible.

It's hard to know whether using nuclear weapons on Japan was justified or not because we don't know for sure what would have happened. The reason that some people believe now that Japan was about to surrender and others believe that Japan would have fought to the last man is because even in 1945, military personnel were divided themselves on the issue.

We can't evaluate sources now that indicate one scenario or another. No one was entirely sure what would have happened if the war had continued. They weren't even sure if the nuclear weapons would convince Japan to surrender. They made the decision to use them based on their own personal estimations.

Were the nuclear weapons partially a show of force to the Soviet Union? Most likely. Would Japan have eventually surrendered even without their use? Also most likely. Did the nuclear weapons end less lives than a drawn out invasion would have? Yes. Were they necessary? No one can say for sure.

The Nuclear Taboo:
You'd be surprised at the changes that have occured over the last half century. One of the more startling though is the nuclear taboo. A concept that nuclear weapons are fundamentally different from normal bombs and the like. How did the nuclear taboo develop?

And perhaps we'd even be surprised to realize how differently nuclear weapons were considered in the past. For example, the Eisenhower administration considered using nuclear weapons just as one would use conventional weapons, to, as the Eisenhower administration put it "get more bang for your buck." Or, on the other side, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet artillery officers were given local command and release authority of the Luna nuclear artillery shells, so as to repel an American ground invasion.

But, as time wore on the nuclear taboo developed. People started to fear the effects of nuclear anything. And now the nuclear taboo is near universal.

1) Most of Japan's Army was tied up in China
2) Russia would have taken an equal toll coming in from the North
3) Much of the Military Infrastructure was destroyed
4) Japan's army was crazy, and suicidal

Ehh, they should have dropped it near (within sight of) a city, on top of a Nippon military boat.

Imagine the effect on the oppressed people of the Soviet Union if the United States had obtained Japanese surrender without using nuclear weapons on civillian targets. If America stated they would not use them on civillians unless they absolutely had to. Then they would not believe that America was an evil nation that wanted to atom bomb Soviet cities. They would know that America would only use nuclear weapons if they were forced to. Soviet propaganda would have been much less effective, and the Soviet leaders would have found it much harder to maintain a grip on their people through fear.

The Nuclear Taboo:
You'd be surprised at the changes that have occured over the last half century. One of the more startling though is the nuclear taboo. A concept that nuclear weapons are fundamentally different from normal bombs and the like. How did the nuclear taboo develop?

And perhaps we'd even be surprised to realize how differently nuclear weapons were considered in the past. For example, the Eisenhower administration considered using nuclear weapons just as one would use conventional weapons, to, as the Eisenhower administration put it "get more bang for your buck." Or, on the other side, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet artillery officers were given local command and release authority of the Luna nuclear artillery shells, so as to repel an American ground invasion.

But, as time wore on the nuclear taboo developed. People started to fear the effects of nuclear anything. And now the nuclear taboo is near universal.

Simple:

Size and Radiation.


Nuclear weapons are big bombs. They have the potential to destroy a lot more than conventional bombs.

More importantly, radiation has many, many effects that a normal bomb doesn't. For example, the land on which the bomb was detonated is uninhabitable for decades. The people severly affected by fallout (closer to the bomb) get cancer and die. The people somewhat affected (further away) may get cancer and die.



This is why nuclear weapons are "fundamentally different from normal bombs."

As much as I hate to say it, it was the right thing to use the nukes.


There are a few issues to look at. First of all, the nuclear weapons of that time were nothing compared to today. Much much worse was done using incendiary weapons. Look at the city of Dresden. Hell, look at much of Europe. The scars of WWII still exist in many cities.

Next, there is the military fanaticism of Japan. They had young men who willingly died for their nation in the form of Kamakazi pilots. This was the mentality of the entire army. It was hugely shameful to be captured. This was also a common feeling among civilians. The death toll of a main land invasion for US troops was not really the deciding factor. Much of the decision rested on the number of Japanese that would have been killed in a mainland total victory.

Finally, if you look at war, cities are not traditionally occupied. This has changed in recent centuries thanks to the British army, but ALL Western politicians are well educated in the teachings of Machiavelli and The Prince (much as Eastern leaders are educated in Sun Tsu's The Art Of War). Machiavelli dictates that nothing should be left standing. A total victory would mean obliterating all of mainland Japan. Every city would be firebombed and leveled, totaling the loss of thousands, if not millions, of civillian deaths.

I would say nukes can be justified in extreme circumstances. WWII was one of these. I would say without question it has not been justified since, and am greatful that it has not been used. However, I think it was the more correct choice in the case of Japan in WWII.


EDIT: Oh, one more thing. The difference between an atomic bomb and "normal" bomb is in how it kills. Typical bombs are incendiary or explosive. People are either burned alive or killed with flames/shrapnel.

Nukes work in a very different way. The energy released by a nuclear weapon is diminishing by distance. At the center of the explosion, people would literally vaporize. Atoms would gain so much energy they would simply fall apart. There were cases of Japanese people looking at the explosion, and their eyeballs/faces just melted from the extreme energy produced. As you move out, the radiation gets weaker. Shadows were burned onto buildings from the power in some areas. The diminishing power would create people with high risk of cancer and risk of offspring with extreme birth defects. The land would be unusable untill the radiation dropped below a certain level. This creates the difference between "normal" and nuclear bombs

1) Yes the nukes on Japan were justified. To end the war it was necessary to nuke Japan and then threaten further attacks (of course they didn't actually have any more nukes).

2) From a Christian point of view, it is immoral to directly kill any innocent person. The ends (end of the war) do not justify the means (killing 100 000+ innocent people). However, being an atheist, I prefer the utilitarian point of view, greatest benefit for the greatest number of people, in which case it would be moral to drop the bomb. Depends on what religion you are.

3) I used to think that arms stockpiling was a great deterrant of war but in light of recent conflicts, ie; Iraq, I've had to think about this a bit. I don't really have an answer yet.

yes, the united states was justified in using a nuclear weapon. it ended the war faster, much faster, than a conventional war would have, and although many lives were lost, I am almost certain more lives were saved in doing so. as for are Nuclear weapons immoral, no, they serve to deter enemy states, and is part of the "peace through greater firepower" premise. remember the cold war? proof positive that these weapons prevent war as well as end them.

In regards to the Japanese fanaticalism:

They were seriously considering not surrendering, even after being nuked two times. It took the Emperor to surrender FOR them--- he did it without consulting with anyone, which was very rare in that military rule--- for them to finally cave.

It wasn't just the military we were worried about. If we invaded Japan, civilians armed with antique guns, shivs, or even unarmed, would just FLOOD the streets trying to stop the attack. It would be as if someone attempted an amphibious assault on California. By the time the military would get there, the attacking force would be half-dead.

In our case, though, we intended to win. Two choices: Amphibiously attack Japan, and let them die in the hundreds of thousands--- if we did this, perhaps half of Japan would die. I'm not joking.

Or nuke them. This was more about making them realize they couldn't win anymore, then about the loss of life, although this was still a big thing. Anyone with logic, and knowledge about the possibilities, would take this.

I've got nothing much to add myself. Most of it has already been stated. The nukes were the least worst of the options available to the allies. The use of both proved to be needed to secure a surrender, and even then there was no assurance that Japan would ever surrender.

Nukes DO have moral factors in certain scenerios, but most of those moral factors could also be simply expressed in cost/benifit analysis terms. Using a nuke has tremendous costs associated with it, the benifits are comparitively few.

The only scenerio where nukes make sense is a MAD situation, whereby the nukes exist but are never used. Beyond that I cannot concieve of a situation whereby Nukes would be the most benificial option.

Yes, people are people. Why is a Japanese civilian more innocent than an American soldier whose orders is to fight on Japanese soil?


Because they're noncombatants?

I had always heard that the US use of Nuclear Weapons on Japan at the end of WWII was more to make a statement to the Russians than to end the war - but recently I read a book (Flyboys) that said (in so many words) that the Japanese govt, during the war, was more crazy than the Nazis by far, and that without the use of nuclear weapons there would have been huge casualties, both for the US and Japan.
I'm curious about what people think about three different issues:

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

Hoping for some enlightenment...

I am only going to reply to 1. No, it wasn't. The key letter in the phraze is 's' as in nukeS. Why would they use two nukes when one nuke would have caused the same effect - destroying moral and showing that the americans can destroy whatever they want to without losing much. I believe that the first nuke, while still controversial, was justified. The second was the unneeded slaughter of civilians to show the world - read russians - the american power.

I don't think the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified without alternatives being investigated - such as their use against a naval target to demonstrate the power.

However, given the length of time the war had taken and the number of casualties being sustained, it is not a surprise that given an option to end the war quickly it was taken.

I DO value civilian lives above military lives, because an elderly person, pregnant woman or child is a very tiny military threat. Killing them does not prevent them from killing you, they are too weak to anyway.

The indiscriminant nature of nuclear weapons makes them immoral - the fallout might kill people hundres or thousands of miles away in a totally different country and keep killing people through cancer for generations.

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

No.The use of nuclear weaponry destroys not only people,but the environment as well./Yes.The residual effects were much worse and longer lasting.

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

Picking a target other than a military installation or the residence of the government was for propoganda purposes.It did its job of terrorizing the world.

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

Morality is in the belief system of the individual and the law of a society./Not as a destructive agent.The use of nuclear power for electro-mechanical work is reasonable.

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

1. Yes. It ended the war quickly and prevented an invasion of mainland Japan. (see #2)

2. Yes. The Japaneese were unwilling to surrender. An invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in more civilian and military deaths than those killed by the bombs.

3. Nuclear weapons are just as moral as any other weapons system. The only "reasonable use" of nuclear weapons that I have seen since the end of WW II is as a deterent. Unfortunatly, some day some country or group somewhere may use one, and that would be very sad and bad.

Why would they use two nukes when one nuke would have caused the same effect -

One did not have the desired effect, it didn't cause Japan to surrender. If they had, the second one would not have been used. :headbang:

The murder of innocent civilians as either an intended means or ends is immoral.

'nuff said

The murder of innocent civilians as either an intended means or ends is immoral.

'nuff said

Unfortuantely war is not very nice and unfortunatly innocent civilians get killed. It is an unfortunate consequence of war.

Unfortuantely war is not very nice and unfortunatly innocent civilians get killed. It is an unfortunate consequence of war.

The solution? Avoid War.

Unfortuantely war is not very nice and unfortunatly innocent civilians get killed. It is an unfortunate consequence of war.

but if it is a deliberate goal it is immoral. I believe that is what the poster was saying.

Because they're noncombatants?

The civilians were training with bambo spears. I don't know what history book you've been reading but their civilians were training to fight a US Invasion. It would've been the end of Japan if we had to go in non-conventionally.

I think the bomb was justified in that it saved millions of civilian Japanese lives.

I am only going to reply to 1. No, it wasn't. The key letter in the phraze is 's' as in nukeS. Why would they use two nukes when one nuke would have caused the same effect - destroying moral and showing that the americans can destroy whatever they want to without losing much. I believe that the first nuke, while still controversial, was justified. The second was the unneeded slaughter of civilians to show the world - read russians - the american power.

The Japanese didn't surrender after 1 nuke. It took the 2nd nuke for them to surrender. We gave them fair warning that the 2nd one was coming if they didn't surrender. They didn't and Nagasaki was obliterated. WHen it was, the Emporer issued the surrender. You know what happened next? The military tried a military Coup that failed and thus Japan surrendered.

The solution? Avoid War.

Absolutely, but remain strong in case you are attacked. Like the US Air Force Strategic Air Command motto said, "Peace is our profession."

The solution? Avoid War.

You can't avoid it regrettably. If we could have then Korea wouldn't have happened, Vietnam wouldn't have happened, the 1st Gulf war wouldn't have happened and the war on terror wouldn't have happened.

War is human nature my friend.

I had always heard that the US use of Nuclear Weapons on Japan at the end of WWII was more to make a statement to the Russians than to end the war - but recently I read a book (Flyboys) that said (in so many words) that the Japanese govt, during the war, was more crazy than the Nazis by far, and that without the use of nuclear weapons there would have been huge casualties, both for the US and Japan.
I'm curious about what people think about three different issues:

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

Hoping for some enlightenment...


It was clear from the Allied side that if the Japanese Home Islands were invaded then the casualties would have been horrendous both for the Allies and the Japanese people themselves. It was the fact that the two bombs were dropped that persuaded the Emperor of Japan to finally move against the hotheads in the Japanese government mainly from the Army who were all for carrying on the war whatever the cost. It has been estimated that the Allies would have suffered over a million casualties alone and judging by what happened on the islands of saipan, where civilians threw themselves off of cliffs and killed their own children to prevent them falling into the hands of the Americans, which thanks to the Japanese government had been portrayed as evil monsters whom massacured children

In an effort to stop the Emperor and number of Army officers tried to stage a coup which thankfully failed.

Maybe it was immoral, but in the long run there are alot of people both British, Americans and Japanese who are alive today thanks to those Atomic bombs.

Something I havent seen is the mention of Plan C that was going to be used on Japan before the invasion. Anyone know this? Plan C what I call it. It has a military code name for sure. Do not remember what it was called. But anyway the plan was to fly wingtip to wingtip bombers with Chem warfare bombs. They were going to use chemical weapons ahead of the invasion to soften the japs up. Now assuming that they went ahead with this plan rather than nukes. Far more japanese would have died in a chemical weapon attack on 50% of there country then a couple of low tonnage nukes. If I were president I would have used the other two nukes we had on them if they werent going to surrender. I would rather see another 2 million enemy dead then a mill of my soldiers killed or wounded during an invasion,

I have talked with a Japanese man in his 70's who was at the Naval academy outside Nakasaki when it was atom bombed. He said he thought it was good that the Americans used the bomb, as he thought it lead to Japan's surrender. I didn't ask him what he thought would have happened if it the atom bombs had been used on millitary targets instead of cities.

The matter isn't what damage it caused initially. More people have died in the years after the bombing due to its effects than the people that were killed in the explosion. War is wrong. All guns should be destroyed. They should not have bombed Japan using nukes, anything would have been better. In fact, the war should not have started period.

It was not justified.

Many many people are still feeling the effect of it.

War is wrong.

I had always heard that the US use of Nuclear Weapons on Japan at the end of WWII was more to make a statement to the Russians than to end the war - but recently I read a book (Flyboys) that said (in so many words) that the Japanese govt, during the war, was more crazy than the Nazis by far, and that without the use of nuclear weapons there would have been huge casualties, both for the US and Japan.
I'm curious about what people think about three different issues:

1) Was the use of nukes on Japan justified? Was it much more terrible than the firebombings already taking place?

2)Assuming that the Japanese govt. was unwilling to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons, is in morally justified to wipe out a number of civilians in order to prevent a greater number of military casualties?

3)Are nuclear weapons inherently immoral? Is there any reasonable use of nuclear power?

Hoping for some enlightenment...

Lemme take a stab at those questions.

1. "Justified" is a pretty vague term. "Effective" would be better.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in essence to a swift end to what would have become a bloodbath not even seen in the war that preceded it.
If the bombings had not taken place, Japan would not have surrendered, and a land invasion of Japan would have taken place.
This would have resulted in millions of casualties.
Also, the surrender prevented a prolonged jungle warfare campaign to eliminate large pockets of Japanese resistance in the South Pacific.
Jungle Warfare as you may know, is particularly costly, and all around awful.

2. Thats a morality question, and is subject to an individual basis.
My mind says that killing 200,000 people to save millions is a pretty good deal.
Its heartless, and an awful choice to have to make, but in the end, it comes down to less people suffering, wich ultimately, makes a cold, terrible sense.

3. Todays nuclear weapons are so much more devastating than either of the two dropped 60 years ago.
Once ONE country attacks with one, the others will as well.
Then...its all over.
Look up the term, "Mutually Assured Destruction".
It means "If were going, your asses are coming with us", and its pretty much the spoken rule of nukes these days.
Thats why no one uses them.
Today, the threat of Nuclear weapons is much more effective a weapon that the bombs themselves.
Ocassionally, one country starts grumbling about this or that, another mentions something about nuclear weapons, and thier possible use...

..first country sits down and shuts up.

So if you believe that removing all life from the face of the earth is immoral, then, yah, they are.
As for "reasonable use"...only telling others you have them.

Nukes are a dangerous game of "Call my Bluff".

So far, no one is willing to call anyones bluff.

A choice between two evils, probably the use of nukes prevented a greater loss of life.

As a side note, I think that because everyone could clearly see the absolute destructive power & long term deadly effects of nukes, it may well have prevented them from being used during the cold war. I think if they hadn't been used on Japan, it's much more likely we would have had WW3 by now.

Usage of atomic bobm was justified, as it scared the hell out of japanese govt, but it should have been dropped to COASTAL WATERS/SOME JAPANESE MILITARY BASE, Okinawa or Iwo Jima for example. That would have scared the Japs just as much, as they'd have seen what the bomb is capable of doing. "Showing what we got" by destroying two totally unarmed, undefended and unindustrialized cities was unnecessary and barbaric.

Besides, what seems to be unknown by most of the people here, Japansese government asked Russia to deliver their wish of peace negotiations to Allies months before Hiroshima, but Stalin refused as he wanted to crab Mantchuria and gain influence in the region. Peace was not in his plans. This, however, shows clearly that Japanese government wasn't "mad", they wanted to save their people when they saw that the defeat was inevitable-just were unwilling to to totalyl surender, they still were mostly samurais and surrendering is not allowed by the samurai acting code. If the landing would have taken place, Japan would have fought fiercely severeal years, and casualties would have been undoubtely high on both sides.

A choice between two evils, probably the use of nukes prevented a greater loss of life.

As a side note, I think that because everyone could clearly see the absolute destructive power & long term deadly effects of nukes, it may well have prevented them from being used during the cold war. I think if they hadn't been used on Japan, it's much more likely we would have had WW3 by now.


Very likely true. Im am almost certain nukes would have flown by now if we didnt do that.