There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it was the correct decision at the time.

(1) The Allies had fought a long and costly war against a very determined aggressor.

(2) Both bombs were still experimental devices barely out of the prototype stage, and little was known about potential after effects, consequently they were viewed in the same light as any other piece of new ordnance, just much more powerful than anything else available at the time.

(3) The effects were actually relatively minor in human terms, as many more persons died in the Tokyo fire bombing attacks, however the widespread destruction sent a very clear message.

(4) Dropping of both weapons within several days left the Japanese hierarchy in no doubt that this was not a "one of" attack and that it may go on indefinitely thus bringing them to their senses very quickly.

For those of you that think it was the right choice...

I just finished Suburo Sakai autobiography SAMURAI! Suburo Sakai was one of the very few Japanese Fighter Aces to survive the war. He is credited with 63 Kills.

He was stationed in Japan as a Test pilot in 1945. While he doesn't criticize the use of the Atomic bomb per se, he does take issue with this notion that that Japan was preparing to resist invasion. According to him he claims precisely the opposite. The reasons are:

1. The only troops available at the homeland were equivalent to the German VOLKSGRENADIERS. Young boys and old men with very limited training. Everybody else was either in the Pacific or in China.

2. In both civilians and military, Morale was a catastrophic levels, suicides were abundant. The worst were the B-29 Raids that flattened cities worse than the A-Bombs. The Japanese government largely kept the people in the dark about the impending disaster. Like Goebbels, they claimed victor in non-exsistent battles up until almost the very end. Only those in the military knew the truth, and when the civilians found out they were totally stunned. They never recovered from the shock. They were in too much shock to openly resist an invasion.

3. Starvation was everywhere, people were down to 1/3 rations per day. Disease was also a problem because sanitation was cut.

4. The Japanese military machine was totally destroyed. At the very end the only weapons the local militia and police were equipped with were spears and knifes. The guns they had carried no ammunition. Every munitions plants was gone. They did had planes, but no fuel, spare parts, ammo, or pilots. By then, most of the Navy was at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

As I said Sakai doesn't blame the USA for the Bomb. In his mind the Americans could not have known the conditions in Japan at that this was war. In war you do what you need to win.

I would make last point. The use of the A-bomb wasn't just to demonstrate to the Japanese what the US had invented, it was also to send a message to Moscow. My belief is that Truman was more worried about Stalin than the Japanese.

Well I am one of those that now believes the bombing was the right choice (there was a time I thought it wrong but age seems to have changed my views) I really don't believe the conditions in Japan were of any concern to the planners personally I think the decission was made based on several other factors most notable are:
1) The pacific campaign had been notable for its brutality and the Japanese (civilians included) desire to fight to the last man, an invasion of Japan under the same conditions would have been an absolute nightmare.

2) The Russians stated they were within a month of being able to invade Japan themselves something that was not desirable to the post European war west.

So as much as I don't like the fact that the bombing took place I can understand their reason for doing it, I believe that it was the right option at the time and in the end saved hundreds of thousands if not millions more lives (both allied and Japanese) than they took.

I agree MonteB. There was no glory or joy in the decision, it was just the last thing that could be done to stop the carnage of another year or so of fire bombing.

And there was also the war weary factor... these men, like my grandfather, had not been home for 3-4 years. With all the bellyaching going on now about multiple deployments lets take a step back and consider this...
4 years in combat zones.
4 years without setting foot on American soil.
4 years of not seeing family.

And then as the kicker you're about to step foot on the hometurf of the bastards who raped Nanjing? The soldiers who landed at Kokoda? The people responsible for Bataan? ON THEIR TURF this time... where they will be fighting not to hold some unrelated rock in the Pacific but where their wives, girlfriends, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters live???

Not just no but no, you drop the bomb and hope they have some sense and tap out.

If Nazi Germany had; had the Atomic bomb they would have used it.

If the Empire of Japan had; had the atomic bomb they would have used it.


Why is it so unthinkable and offensive that the US used a weapon that perhaps saved up wards of one million Aussie, Kiwi, Brit, Canadian and yes American lives which would have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese home islands?

... and also saved a lot of Japanese lives as well.

Yes, the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians, but so were very many of those whose lives were saved by the bombings.

One statement that I've read here (and often elsewhere) is that demonstrating the bomb to Stalin was one of the key reasons it was used. I doubt this is true nor would it have been necessary. At the last "Big Three" conference, Truman told Stalin face-to-face that the U.S. had developed a weapon more powerful than anything before. Stalin reacted with very little surprise, probably because he already knew in detail exactly what Truman was talking about. Most likely, he had an informant inside the nuclear development facility in New Mexico. I read several sources that stated this while I was taking a course in espionage in college. My professor (who had worked in US Naval intelligence for a number of years) was convinced this was the truth. He wasn't prone to following myths or legends; he sought only facts. And that's why I believe him still.

Originally Posted by Jeff Simmons

One statement that I've read here (and often elsewhere) is that demonstrating the bomb to Stalin was one of the key reasons it was used. I doubt this is true nor would it have been necessary. At the last "Big Three" conference, Truman told Stalin face-to-face that the U.S. had developed a weapon more powerful than anything before. Stalin reacted with very little surprise, probably because he already knew in detail exactly what Truman was talking about. Most likely, he had an informant inside the nuclear development facility in New Mexico. I read several sources that stated this while I was taking a course in espionage in college. My professor (who had worked in US Naval intelligence for a number of years) was convinced this was the truth. He wasn't prone to following myths or legends; he sought only facts. And that's why I believe him still.

Maybe Stalin did know. But then it is possible that he did not comprehend the importance of a potential atomic bomb. Weeks after the US bombings, however, Stalin made the Soviet nuclear program the country's highest priority, telling the scientific director of the program Igor Kurchatov to "ask for anything you like."