A question for those who are against the use of atomics bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

[Act_of_Reparation]

87. Yeah, no.

I'm not going to tell you what I would have done to end the Second World War because ending the Second World War isn't my fucking business. What I can do is look back, with benefit of hindsight and 75 years of historical analysis, and determine whether or not it was the moral/ethical thing to do.

I certainly have reservations. Here is why:

First: framing the decision as dilemma of military manpower is kind of ridiculous. The White House and military brass would have been more concerned with time tables than human lives. The clock was ticking. Invasion would cost thousands of lives, certainly, but it would very likely have resulted in the partitioning of Japan between the US and the Soviet Union as well. Ceding more territory to the communists was not an option the United States was willing to entertain.

Secondly: you don't get to have it both ways. The Japanese could not have simultaneously been so unafraid of death that they would have defended their nation to the last man, and yet be so terrified of atomic bombs that they would surrender unconditionally. The atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly more destructive than conventional bombings. What kind of terror could they engender that the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more people, did not?

So, now the important questions:

1) If the Japanese were willing to surrender with conditions, would it be moral/ethical to drop the bomb to coerce them into an unconditional surrender?

2) If you believe a Soviet Union invasion of Japan is imminent, is it moral/ethical to drop the bomb if you think doing so might force the Japanese to surrender and thereby keep Soviet influence from expanding into East Asia?