Atman writes: "The idea that there has been a "long-standing debate" about the use of the atomic bomb is a myth. .... There has, though, been a recent anti-american push to raise the debate to the level of public consciousness and rewrite history to claim there has always been a debate about its use."

Atman has a point that the use of the atomic bomb has become popular as a retroactive rhetorical club with which to beat the USA. Commentators attempt to map their current resentments du jour (Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto, you name it) onto US actions of 60 years ago. The argument goes something like: "How can you Americans talk about human rights, democracy, motherhood, and apple pie [or fill in your favorite unassailable virtue here]? You dropped THE BOMB on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!" The "sin" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in this school of thought, can never be washed from America's hands, and taints whatever the US has done from then on.

I think this is a specious line of argument. The circumstances were very different at the end of WWII than the world situation today. I think there's little analogy between the atom bomb attacks of 1945 and US actions on the world stage in 2005, whether you think the US was right or wrong, then or now.

However there was debate, even at the time, about the morality of using nuclear weapons. Some of the Manhattan Project scientists felt the project should be stopped once it was clear the Nazis had not succeeded in developing a nuclear bomb. Others thought a bomb should be dropped on a remote island as a warning to the Japanese. Even within the US military there was opposition to the use of so devastating a weapon (among the few leaders who knew it existed). And in the immediate aftermath some commentators felt it had been wrong to drop atomic bombs on mainly civilian targets (not that there was much left in Japan of military value by August 1945).

...and yet, the Japanese had had enough and were seeking terms. Their ability to engage allied air & naval forces had been reduced to 'bugger all'. Their military industrial complex was crumbling. Where was the imperative? Was Truman concerned for the starving Japanese civilians? Smile. Where was he in the American electoral cycle?

Truman did have an ideological distaste for a joint invasion with the Soviets. Yet, the Soviets were extremely unlikely to invade on their own, the logistics (maritime) alone was beyond them. They needed US shipping to invade. Surely this gave Truman time to stall, time to turn the screws, time to let allow the Japanese to come around to the realisation that they must surrender?

For me. It seems that Truman 'nuked' Japan because it suited his agenda. Sure, there were many concerns for him to balance (you summarise these well) and a mushroom cloud was an option he had to consider. I just wish he'd given a little more weight to human cost.

It’s a false dichotomy to say it ‘had to be done’, because otherwise 300, 000k Allied troops would die. There were other options. Truman’s administration was aware of this then and its clear to all now.

There was no immediate imperative to use nuclear weapons. The war was won. So if the bomb was dropped for ideological reasons, should we be surprised if some (not I, on balance) draw the similarity between terrorist killing for ideology and Truman doing the same?

Is it morally better to kill with clinical precision and the absence of ‘personnel’ violence? Next time a world leader is weighing up their options, do we really only want them to count their own dead?

Smiling,

Trebor

P.S. (btw) Nice post.

P.P.S. – You didn’t mention China in your post. Do you think Soviet activities in China were a factor in the decision to nuke Japan?