Decision to Drop the Nuclear Bomb on Japan

Plunge has put together a great series of posts about the use of atomic weapons against Japan by the US during World War II. Here is a summary of the article:

Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki ended the war with Japan and saved millions of lives, both Allied and Japanese. The bombing of these two cities forced a surrender that was nearly unfathomable to the military leaders in Japan at the time. If it wasn’t for the atomic bomb, the US likely would have been forced into a long, deadly struggle to end the war with Japan, a struggle that might have been far too long and difficult for the American public to have accepted. While Japan would still have most likely surrendered, in my opinion, it would have been a negotiated surrender that would have meant more war in the future.

Read the entire series that validates the above summary.

My thoughts have always been that World War II was a conflict that was fought with the “Total War” doctrine where the bombing of cities was justifiable to break national will power to gain “Total Victory”. After World War I no total victory was ever achieved which led to World War II. If the Japanese had not surrendered and just negotiated an end to the war who is to say they wouldn’t just rearm and 15 years later start fighting again which would take more lives?

I visited the Atomic Bomb Memorial in Hiroshima 4 years ago and it makes the US look really barbaric for nuking Hiroshima. They parade all the school children into there to indoctrinate them about why the US was wrong for nuking Japan. Seeing the pictures of all the melted bodies on display the kids looked at me like I was some kind of devil. No mention is made at the memorial about the US rational for using nuclear weapons or the mention that Japan started the war to begin with.

After the battles to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa it was becoming very clear that any battle to take over the Japanese home island would cost many American lives. The nuclear bombing was a way to get Japan to surrender without having to endure heavy US casualties. When I was in college I actually debated this point with a Japanese classmate who countered that the US should of nuked a nearby coastline to display the might of the atomic weapon. The display of the power of the atomic weapon would have surely caused the militarists to surrender. That is probably what the Japanese educational system taught him as kid as he toured the A-bomb Memorial. I countered his claim by simply stating that nuking Hiroshima didn’t get the Japanese to surrender. It took two nukes to get Japan to surrender. They didn’t get the message after one nuclear bombing what would have a display of the power of a nuclear bomb have done? Plus the US only had two operational nuclear bombs at the time. They couldn’t afford to expend one on a show of force. I always felt that if the US was so barbaric and just looking to kill people the US could of just as easily nuked Tokyo or Kyoto. Instead the US chose smaller, militarily significant cities to hit. So in short yes it was right to use nuclear weapons in that conflict.

However, this topic gets me thinking to why didn’t the US just nuke Pyongyang and Beijing during the Korean War to break the North Korean and Chinese will to fight. The Korean War wasn’t fought by the “Total War” doctrine which General MacArthur was used to playing by during World War II. The Cold War and the creation of nuclear weapons had made the “Total War” doctrine obsolete because the amount of destruction that would result on both sides would make any war to costly to wage.

General MacArthur couldn’t learn to play by the new “Limited War” Doctrine and was ultimately fired by Harry Truman because of it. The use of nuclear weapons during the Korean War had the possibility of bringing the Russians into the war which the US did not want to have happen. A combined fight against the Chinese and Russians in the mountains of Korea was the wrong war at the wrong time for the US. Preventing World War III was determined to be more important than achieving Total Victory.

History has shown that Truman was right and the “Limited War” doctrine did prevent World War III but the lack of Total Victory during the Korean War continues to cause problems here on the peninsula to this day and probably for many years to come.