Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right decision?

[Martinus]

I thought it was universally accepted in the Western world that it was a tough but right decision - but it seems many people disagree.

[Eddie Teach]

Generally yes, though I might have waited a few more days before dropping the second.

[The Brain]

After destroying other Japanese cities not destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki would leave the US open to accusations of favoritism.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Should've dropped them on the Poland to sever the Red Army's supply lines.

[Camerus]

Yes, both at the time and, overwhelmingly, in hindsight.

[Admiral Yi]

Generally yes, though I might have waited a few more days before dropping the second.

Generally agree, though the counterargument is that every day the war continues is another day of Japanese occupation and captivity for POWs.

[Razgovory]

Something like 100,000 people died every month in the occupied territories.  We needed to end the war as quickly as possible.  There is of course also the possibility that if the war went any longer the Russians could have gotten a part of japan for themselves.  Having a North Japan and South Japan sounds like a really bad idea.

[Jaron]

Killing subhumans is always the right thing to do.

[Ed Anger]

They weren't nuked enough.

[Monoriu]

It provided the Japanese with the excuse they needed to end the war.  Hard to see why it would be the wrong decision. 

[Neil]

Yes, it was the right decision.  Given that the alternative was continuing the firebombing of Japanese cities (far deadlier than atomic attacks) and using submarines, air attacks and naval bombardment to prevent food and goods from being moved within Japan, followed by a bloody invasion of the Japanese islands.  People who weren't in favour of dropping the bombs generally haven't thought about it realistically.

[CountDeMoney]

It was the only decision.

[Valmy]

Well we tried to end the war. But the Japanese still probably would have fought on if the Russians had not subsequently destroyed their army in Manchuria. Considering we were firebombing their cities and killing absurd amounts of people every week...well...

WWII was a horrible thing. What can I say?

[grumbler]

Well we tried to end the war. But the Japanese still probably would have fought on if the Russians had not subsequently destroyed their army in Manchuria. Considering we were firebombing their cities and killing absurd amounts of people every week...well...

WWII was a horrible thing. What can I say?

the Japanese high command didn't know about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria when the decision was made to surrender.

Read the book Downfall.  It will end any doubts you might have about the wisdom of dropping the bombs, and has never been seriously challenged as a scholarly work.  Until the bombs were dropped, the Imperial High Command was adamant that they could not surrender until they had met and defeated the first US invasion.  The loss of Manchuria would not have altered that calculus.  However, the atomic bombs demonstrated that all of their bravery and self-sacrifice would be in vain.  Dropping two bombs within a week demonstrated (erroneously, but the Japanese could not know that) that the US had enough atomic bombs to level all of Japan and, more importantly, kill the Emperor no matter how bravely he was defended.  The Japanese High Command surrendered because the were convinced by the atomic bombings that they would never even be give the opportunity to show their last full measure of devotion to their country and emperor - they would just die helplessly in a nuclear fireball.

Fuck, yeah, dropping the bombs was the right decision.   Pretty much every non-leftist Japanese scholar of the war agrees.

[CountDeMoney]

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omerette.