Was the Use of the A-Bomb against Japan Necessary?

by Dr. John Powers

This a pernicious question that seems never to go away. The short answer is “no … the use of the A-Bomb was not necessary” but this answer holds only in the context of whether it was the most humane option available.

Let’s, therefore, consider the options:

·         Invade Japan.

·         Send the invasion forces home, move all of our long range bombers and fighter support to the Pacific and continue to bomb Japan until it surrendered.

·         Drop the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The first option was what the Japanese high command anticipated and wanted. This was a part of the culture of “never surrender” that led to horrid losses throughout the Pacific war and horrible treatment of allied prisoners as the Japanese captors felt that they had disgraced themselves by surrendering and deserved such treatment.

The first option was also what some of our military leadership salivated over in the context of “leading men in a desperate battle.” While this is a fictitious characterization articulated in the movie Patton, it was not totally absent in the makeup of select top generals and admirals. The fact that the second option as not at the top of the military discussion at that time gives credence to this hypothesis.

Estimates of US casualties had we adopted the first option are in the range of five hundred thousand to one million dead. The corresponding estimates of Japanese casualties are many times that. These are numbers that dwarf the number of killed, wounded and long term radiation sufferers at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

President Truman understood this and did not hesitate to select the third option: drop the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that the Japanese high command did not immediately surrender after Hiroshima or at least send some signal that it was contemplating surrender is evidence of the mindset of the Japanese leadership.

Truman’s decision is also testament to his rejection of the second option on humanitarian grounds. It is assumed that at least one member of his inner circle had figured out that the second option was infinitely superior to invasion so let’s try to understand in detail what this option would have entailed.

We had adequate airfields in the islands surrounding Japan to house all the bombers and fighters needed for 1000 plus bomber runs over Japan. Following the end of the war in Europe in May 1945 plans were made to transfer some of the B-17/B-24 heavy bomber groups of Eighth Air Force to the Pacific Theater of Operations and upgrade them to B-29 Superfortress bomb groups. Further, Japan's military and civil defenses were unable to stop the Allied attacks. The number of fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft guns assigned to defensive duties in the Japanese home islands were inadequate and most of these aircraft and guns had difficulty reaching the high altitudes at which B-29s often operated. Fuel shortages, inadequate pilot training, and a lack of coordination between units also constrained the effectiveness of its fighter force.

While the invasion of Japan, reportedly, was set for October 1945, if a decision was made not to use the A-Bombs, we could have sent all of our invasion force home signaling to the Japanese high command that we had no intent on invading. We probably would have had to give them access to our bases so that they knew we were serious about not invading.  We would also have had to inform their high command so they would know for certain our intent to conduct massive conventional bombing to Japanese cities until Japan surrendered. We could have warned the Japanese people via radio and leaflets of our strategy and intended targets.

If we had adopted this strategy, the number of killed, wounded and displaced would have been unthinkable before the Japanese high command would have finally surrendered. This is the basis of the assertion that the A-Bomb option was the more humane. It was the shock value in the destructiveness of these two bombs that led to the surrender not the number of casualties. We had already inflicted significantly more casualties in the past year thru our conventional bombing. 

America on Its Knees?

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, happy Memorial Day weekend.  Any reflections?

AM:  When I think of my father’s experiences as a decorated and wounded fighter pilot in the Pacific Theater during World War II, my own experiences in combat and the friends who paid the ultimate price, and all of our fallen brothers and sisters who gave their lives for America, I can’t help but believe America is now on its knees.

Old Gadfly:  Why do you say this?

AM:  I do not recall a period in my lifetime when the world was in such a fragile state, to include my own country, America.  Of course, I was born after WWII, so I only know about this era from my father and mother, and their peers and history books (which have evolved in the modern educational system to water down the major moral issues involved).  The international system was threatened by Japanese imperialism and German fascism.  Millions of lives were sacrificed in this conflict.  Then, I personally experienced the threat of communism during the Korean War, the Cold War, and in direct combat operations during the Vietnam War.

Old Gadfly:  I had a recent conversation with a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy in which I asked for his thoughts about communism.  His response was that he did not know what communism is.  I told him that while it had been 13 years since I retired from the Air Force, my 30 years in uniform were mostly in support of our defense of America against the threat of communism.  This reinforces your observation about how the educational system has watered down essential truths about history.

IM:  Let me contribute one of my observations.  This past week, the American President visited Hiroshima in Japan.  Ironically, this visit was days before America celebrated Memorial Day.  In listening to the President’s speech, I recognized a clear collision between sophomoric anti-American idealism and the blunt and unforgiving impact of reality.  And, the reality of Obama’s rhetoric was to force America to its knees—a country that gave him the privilege (not due to the politically correct notion of white privilege, but the privilege of being an American) of ascending to the position of President.   This is one reason he apparently felt compelled to say one American presidential candidate is making other world leaders nervous.  He fails to acknowledge that other nations are not used to a world without American leadership.  So, Obama attempted to assuage international concerns by suggesting America get back on its knees in apology for past Presidential decisions.

Old Gadfly:  He did not apologize for dropping the atomic bomb.

IM:  He did not explicitly apologize.  His rhetoric was more damning: 

Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself. . . .

The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.

Old Gadfly:  America had no conquest intentions.  And, I noticed the President felt no obligation to instantiate the atomic bombing act within the broader historical context.

AM:  Yes, Obama's idealism ignored Japanese atrocities in China, the Philippines, Korea, and so forth.

Old Gadfly:  While serving in a leadership position in Japan from 1997 to 1999, I had a visit from a small delegation from the Japanese Defense Forces Military History Directorate.  The senior officer was a major general, accompanied by two colonels.  After a tour of some of the World War II historical sites at Yokota Air Base, we sat for coffee and a visit.  A few minutes into our seemingly trivial conversation through my interpreter, I decided to share an observation.  It stemmed from a documentary on WWII seen through the lenses of four national perspectives:  America, British, French, and the Soviet Union.  The specific scene I shared was when the Soviet Union’s Stalin dictated a communique through a Japanese scholar to the Emperor of Japan, inviting him to join forces with Russia.  When the response arrived, Stalin was anxious to hear what the Emperor had to say.  The scholar, somewhat perplexed, said the response was provided in an ancient form of Kanji (Chinese characters used in the Japanese language).  “Well,” Stalin asked, “can you translate it?”  “Yes,” the scholar said, “but it is a non-answer.”  “What does that mean?” Stalin thundered.  The scholar explained that the emperor had no authority to make any agreements because the military was in political command.  When I noticed that there was no discernible reaction from the general, I asked my interpreter if she had relayed my thoughts verbatim.  She admitted that she had modified the message somewhat.  I asked her to please repeat what I said verbatim.  This time the general visibly reacted, and said, “It is refreshing to discuss history frankly and truthfully—we cannot learn from our mistakes if we do not embrace them.”

IM:  So, Obama’s idealism failed to understand the importance of historical lessons learned and how civilizations truly advance.

Old Gadfly:  That’s correct.  Fortunately, America still includes among its citizens those who have a firmer grasp on reality.  Here is an excellent article by my good friend, Dr. John Powers, on the Japanese atomic bomb decision.

AM:  Dr. Powers’ logic and analysis are solid.

Old Gadfly: Yes, and amazingly, supposed smart people still want to rewrite history.  A couple weeks after I hosted the Japanese major general, I hosted a visit by a group of officers and senior government civilians (similar to America’s National War College).  At my table were 10 Japanese colonels and Japan’s Chief Scientist.  Interrupting a pleasant conversation about current affairs between America and Japan, the Chief Scientist, a woman, asked me for my opinion about the morality of the Potsdam Declaration.  I responded that it was a very serious dilemma—a choice between two evils.  It took tremendous moral courage to make the right decision.  A different decision most likely would not have enabled the Japanese culture to allow a woman to be Japan’s Chief Scientist.  The men at the table clearly understood the message.  The Chief Scientist seemed unwilling to change her notion of the history she wanted to believe.

IM:   Yet, for the President of the United States, a country that has gone to great lengths to defeat tyranny and to promote liberty in America and beyond, to subtly criticize monumental moral decisions by former Presidents who demonstrated true character and leadership, clearly illustrates that this President diminishes what America is about while extolling his own narcissistic appetite for personal greatness.

Old Gadfly:  When I was younger and deployed to Turkey, I had an interesting experience.  While walking down a dirt road near Incirlik Air Base in civilian clothes, a little boy looked at me and saluted.  I returned his salute.  I asked a nearby older man, who was observing, if he spoke English.  And he said, “Yes.”  I asked him why the little boy saluted me.  He said, “Because you are American.”  I asked, “How does he know I’m American?”  He responded, “You have the walk of freedom.”

AM:  We are losing that image.  Just this week, I read that the Air Force is considering annual bonuses of nearly $60,000 to keep pilots from transitioning to the airlines.  What happened to a sense of duty?

IM:  Well, doesn’t a sense of duty require a belief in serving a greater good?

AM:  Yes.

IM:  In the Obama era, a time that represented fundamentally transforming America, what is America?

AM:  When I served, it was to protect our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Gadfly, remember the Metaphysics of Pure Reason in our philosophy course with Mal Wakin?  Most of us USAF Academy products agreed with Kant that happiness was a consequence of an unconditional obligation to do our moral duty.  Where is that same sense of duty today?

Old Gadfly:  Obama and his progressive cohort have deliberately put America on its knees in deference to a Marxist utopia.  They do not believe in natural law; they believe all rights are granted by a government.  This is why America needs to be on its knees, asking for the same strength and wisdom our founding fathers prayed for when they created the most prosperous and decent nation in human history.  George Washington’s Farewell Address and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address represent two Presidents of true moral character, who understood what America is as an idea and the cost to preserve it.  Memorial Day should be a time to perpetuate this understanding.  How many Americans will interrupt the barbecues to acknowledge the Americans who gave “their last full measure of devotion,” a moral duty to protect and preserve an American idea once well understood by Americans and the rest of the world?  Can this be one of the reasons Trump’s “Let’s Make America Great Again” slogan resonates with so many Americans?  We are a nation once recognized for its “walk of freedom,” not as a nation on its knees.