What we do know as a fact - which seems to be glossed over by a lot of people - is that the Emperor specifically mentioned the bomb in his surrender speech as one of the reasons why they were surrendering.
This is a bit like forgiving Nazis because they did not have the internet to read about Jews that they are not so evil.
Its very much possible the Japan would have surrendered a few months later anyway if the US does keeps up the sea blockade and does a few more normal bombing runs.
NOTHING justifies killing 200.000 civilians, its a war crime.
There's no evidence that anyone assumed it was the only way. It was simply a show of force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
That said, this doesn't really excuse dropping not one but two bombs on civilian centers. Dropping one a stone's throw from Tokyo (say, the Boso or Izu peninsulas) would likely have made the point as effectively and with less casualties.
There was also a plenty of evidence that the U.S. wanted to "test" the bomb in a real-world scenario and to demonstrate its military might to a much wider audience than just Japan.
Ascribe whatever nefarious motive you want. Those two bombs brought about the end of the war with a lot less casualties (on both sides) than the runner up option (invasion).
You cannot know if a bloody invasion was the only other option. Perhaps doing a test and 'leaking' to the press that Japan was next would work too? Or bombing a non densely populated area?
Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones, since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc.
Well that was the shovel ready option that they were actively preparing for. IIRC it was scheduled for November so unless some other unexpected circumstance was going to force the Japanese into surrendering before then the invasion was going to happen.
>Or bombing a non densely populated area?
Considered and ruled out in 1945
>Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones
Yes you can. It's done the same way. Start at zero and go up.
>since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc.
This is only an issue for the people who survived the bomb first hand. It's not like their grandkids are going to suffer radiation sickness.
I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your tone but your comment reeks of being in an ivory tower and out of touch. There was every indication (Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name two) that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man on the home islands. There was a Japanese army running around beheading everyone in China. The American blockade was fighting off kamikaze attacks regularly. They could have firebombed those cities if they wanted but that wouldn't have sent the same message to Japanese leadership.
Every day the war continued cost lives. Using atomic weapons and ending the war sooner was well worth the extra cancer. I seriously cannot fathom the kind of ideology or belief system that leads one to conclude otherwise.
Huh? No, not radiation sickness as such, but future generations being more prone to have cancer, being born with defects and such. This isn't that hard.
Also, you reply reeks of thinking that I accept the premise that the U.S. seriously considered other options and ruled them out in the first place. It's pretty evident that they wanted to see if the bomb really works and even avoided bombing with conventional weapons, so they may use the nuclear option later.
I know this doesn't sound good and doesn't fit into the simplistic narrative everyone wants to imagine, but that's not my problem.
This[1] sounds like "serious consideration" to me.
The Emperor basically wanted to still be Emperor after the war, which we ensured anyway, had we given such assurances prior, an invasion might not have been necessary at all. The Japanese were already discussing surrender.
Opinion of somebody who was there: "[...] the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. "
And if you think that such use of nuclear weapons would be well considered, note that nukes were practically ready for Vietnam, because apparently Napalm wasn't enough.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/us-nearly-used-...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
That is not what we are taught.
What we are taught is that it was a terrible evil that was judged to be the better option of two evils. This is still potentially not true, and in hindsight with knowledge that the Japanese were not nearly as stubborn as we thought they were, it looks terrible. But these are luxuries afforded to people with the Internet and decades of time to analyze the situation that President Truman did not have.
Only idiots in America think that it was necessary to end the war. Quit knocking down strawmen.