Was the use of the atomic bomb against Japan justified?

[sharp_stick]

112. Perhaps I have moved off topic a bit

I was replying to your response not the OP and in so doing was trying to narrow the focus. Your opinion claims that the act was not justified because Japan was already finished... "They may have still had "fighting spirit" but Japan was dead in the water".

If you want to insult me with comments like "Your reply is as unsurprising as it is unoriginal" knock yourself out. It doesn't do anything to elevate your reply above typical internet bullshit. Maybe that was the idea?

I wanted to make the point that I don't think Japan was as dead in the water as you believe. With millions of troops deployed to defend the islands, the vast majority of which in the South ready for the Americans, the Japanese were not showing signs of being ready to give up. The Imperial Japanese never gave up, they fought and fought to the end whenever they were cornered this wasn't going to be any different. Lots of people were going to die, whether it was from an invasion, a siege or the dropping of the bombs. I think fewer died due to the nuclear bombs than would have in an invasion, certainly a lot fewer Americans and that is the entire goal when in a war.

There were several strategic reasons for the dropping of the bombs, especially the second one, other than trying to put an end to the Japanese as a power in WW2.

One big one that doesn't get discussed much is that command was using it as an implicit threat to Stalin. By the time the war ended, the west was already pretty wary of Soviet intentions and expansion and they felt the need to let Stalin know that they weren't afraid to use these things. Two, they wanted to test the ability of troops to respond in reaction to an atomic bomb and they knew the Japanese would surrender following the bombings giving them the chance. Three, they wanted to give the impression that they could make and deploy atomic bombs at will. They only had two of them and they were difficult to make, nobody else knew yet how difficult so the Americans wanted the world to think they had a pile of them ready to go. These are all justifications for doing it. It's cold and doesn't speak to the morality of doing it but it was military strategy. Morality rarely enters the equation when working on strategy.

If you want to discuss the morality of dropping atomic bombs that would require an entirely different answer than I was trying to get across.

Personally I don't think it was any more or less moral than lots of what happened during WW2. That entire time in history is a black mark on humans as a moral species. My Great Uncle was a lawyer and later a judge in York UK. He worked with the British following the war in Europe and was a clerk to one of the judges during the Belsen trial in 1945. I never knew the man but my Grandfather, also a vet of Europe from Canada, talked rarely about how affected my Great Uncle was by not only his experiences fighting in Europe but especially by his work during these trials and the hangings that he had to attend following them. He had become immune to the fear and horror of death, he also became withdrawn and humorless. My Grandfather said it was years before he was happy again and then only because he was able to keep his marriage and family as a central part of his life. It was only when his Grandchildren came along that he seemed to be able to let go of his memories.

Also personally, I think of the the entire period as a time where, following 6 years of overt war and even longer considering the pre-war actions of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese people were much more callous for lack of a better term. Life wasn't as important, especially the lives of the enemy.

Do I think it was justified? Strategically absolutely, it achieved the goals set out. Morally, I've never been able to answer that completely but I don't rank it as any more immoral than much of the rest of that period in history.