Comment on US Survey on the Atomic Bombings by mr.t

Parent Post: US Survey on the Atomic Bombings

mr.t · 3/10/2025, 7:25:08 AM · permalink

The answer is complicated. If someone tells you the answer is just simple, they are selling you a load of goods. Matters of war and peace, of foreign policy, of the relations between states, peoples, the economy, etc, are big questions with many moving parts and are extremely complex. But my position is that the US Government broadly speaking knew what it was doing when they dropped the bombs on Japan in 1945, and it was a good thing.  
  
There is so much one could say about it, but I will limit myself to a few observations.  
  
First we need to establish the basic facts. Then we can start to dig into the nuances.  
The basic fact is that the Imperial Council did not vote to surrender until after the second atomic bombing. And the vote was 3-3. The Emperor had to break the tie. This was extraordinary as the Emperor was not supposed to actually participate in the Council.  
Obviously the shock of the bombings did a lot to dislodge the stubbornness of the council.  
But it only spurred them to send a formal peace offer, where they wanted a guarantee of the Emperor's safety and position.  
The war did not end for another few days, as a drama over terms played out. Eventually the Japanese, eventually resigning themselves to the totality of their circumstances, reluctantly accepted the Potsdam terms, agreed upon at the Potsdam conference by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Republic of China, and later signed onto by the Soviet Union.  
The war had been clearly lost for months, if not years, and serious preparations were being made for mass-resistance, amongst the armed forces and the general population.  
In vietnam, you had mothers hiding grenades with their babies in their arms... and you almost certainly would have seen a lot of that in Japan.  
  
And then there's Operation Olympic and Operation Downfall.  
Make no mistake, Operation Olympic was going to happen. The United States was going to invade Kyūshū on November 1, 1945. They may have delayed for weather or operational issues, but they were determined to land and bring the war to a close before the US population became war weary.  
  
Which brings us to the interpretation of surrender.  
What does 'surrender' mean? There are many flavors of surrender and defeat. There is pretty much one flavor of Unconditional Surrender - you are now subject to the whims of the victor, whatever they may be. The terms for victory in World War II were, naturally, greatly influenced by the conclusion of World War I. The political and military leaders of the victors wanted to ensure that World War II was not merely a 20-year pause until the next war as Versailles had been. And they succeeded spectacularly in both instances, in Germany and in Japan. One of their ideas, solutions to this problem, was Unconditional Surrender. Because it laid bare the extent of the defeat, and allowed for a political redesign of the state to accommodate the interests of the victorious powers, thus preventing future war.  
  
I think you would have been hard pressed to find a Japanese military member who would have been happy to disarm and surrender themselves to the Americans, to the Chinese, to the Soviets, and others. To submit the holy land of Japan to foreign occupation. To submit their Emperor before the Occupation Authorities. To submit their politics, culture, economy... every aspect of their society to General MacArthur.  
Mac Arthur and the United States certainly did not change everything... but they had the power to do so. Because they had the power to dethrone the Emperor, the Japanese ministers and officials were forced to actively work with Mac Arthur, to convince him to not do so. The United States held tremendous leverage to the point where Emperor Hirohito became their agent and practical supplicant.  
  
And then there is the matter of the terror of nuclear weapons.  
Considering how close we came during the cold war and how close we are right now to total nuclear exchange, I'm glad that the bombs were dropped.  
Never underestimate the stupidity of man. Some people have to touch the stove to see that it's hot.  
This was also a strong reason for the US government to drop that bombs - to set a new geopolitical tone for the new post-war, atomic era. The atomic bombing of Japan saved infinitely more lives than the firebombing ever did, both in terms of Japanese then and humanity around the world since then, and with less human cost.  
I tend to view the post-war hand-wringing of participants like Stimson to reflect well on their personal character, rather than as a sober analysis, because what decent person wouldn't have private doubts if one's decisions directly led to the deaths of so many.  
Of course at the time, before the bombings and after, many US Government officials had many different opinions on it.  
However, sitting in 2025... and given the reality of nuclear arsenals, it is perhaps better that humanity has touched that stove and that it left such an impression that people all over the world are still disturbed and fearful 80 years later.

Signature