Re: Pros and cons of using the A-Bomb

On Apr 9, 7:06 pm, a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Garner) wrote:

But did Truman and his advisers really think through the alternative?

Yes, they did.

The "alternative" was continuing to slog through a very bloody war, as
Britain had been doing since 1939 and the US since 1941. Not a very
attractive alternative.



Japan at the time was clearly beaten, even if the army didn't know it.

First off, the fact "the army didn't know it" is extremely critical.
That meant, and we know it's true, that the Japanese armed forces
would continue vigorous and bloody fighting, doing whatever it took,
to keep the war going. That meant the loss of still more Allied lives
and resources.

So, right there is your answer. The "alternative" was more Allied
losses. That's not accpetable.

In any event, the fact is Japan was NOT "clearly beaten". It was in
bad shape yes, but it still had plenty of military resources held in
reserve.


It might have taken some weeks longer, but the inevitable result was that
the Japanese would have had to give up.

Not correct. It would've taken far longer, months, maybe a year, at a
cost of Allied lives, for the Japanese to "give up". They had
demonstrated absolutely no willingness to do so, being "beaten" or
not.


It was, of course, cheaper and easier to use the A-Bomb. But did Truman
really think of the consequences? The fact that for the rest of the
century (indeed the rest of eternity) his country would be branded as the
first to use this weapon.

That (the "branding") really isn't true.

Yes, the US was the first (and so far the only) country to deploy
atomic weapons and everyone knows it. But it appears the vast
majority of people worldwide accept that decision in the context and
time that it was made--it was a necessary decision under the
circumstances. The evidence is overwhelming it was the right thing to
do.

As to thinking of the "consequences", Truman's first priority--as it
should've been--was Allied lives and resources. He wanted to save
them. That was his duty. Truman and the military were concerned with
the most effective deployment to end the war. They discussed that in
detail.

A second consideration Truman kept in mind was the fate of the enemy
(certainly more so than the Axis powers cared about anyone else).
Truman saw firsthand the devastation of Germany and he also was in
combat himself. He felt the bomb would end the need for that, which
it did.

Some scientists were concerned about "future branding". However,
those scientists did not have to answer to the families of the dead
servicemen or the people tired of fighting a long war. It's real easy
being an armchair general.

So yes indeed, Truman and his advisers kept the "consequences" very
much in mind. But it was the consequences that counted at the time,
not those talked about later in the comfort of universities.


Even today, the US is suffering the
consequences of this ...

I am aware of no adverse effect on the Allies for using the bomb in WW
II. (Subsequent postwar buildup of a nuclear weapons is another story
beyond the scope here. But WW II and postwar activities two very
separate issues.)

.

Relevant Pages