Would the U.S. Drop the Bomb Again?

A significant minority of Americans have always been steadfast cultural heirs of our seventh president, Andrew Jackson. Walter Russell Mead described this folk community is his 2002 book, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.

Jacksonian Americans recognize two kinds of enemies and two kinds of fighting: honorable enemies fight a clean fight and are entitled to be opposed in the same way; dishonorable enemies fight dirty wars and in that case all rules are off. When it comes to dishonorable opponents, General Curtis LeMay captured the Jacksonian spirit when he said, “I’ll tell you what war is about. You’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.”

Consciously or not, Donald Trump has become the new avatar of Jacksonianism. On November 8th, we will discover exactly how many Americans still consider themselves to be members of this folk community.

In use of the atomic bomb, respondents to these polls, both about WWII and the future, imagine false choices.  For example, Japanese have mostly thought their nation already defeated and so the bombs were not needed except to preempt Soviets.  True, the B-29s, in firebombing cities and in Operation Starvation (mining harbors to blockade fuel) had won, but Japan's military wanted to fight for better terms for surrender, such as keeping the emperor.  There is a big difference between defeat and surrender.  Forcing and enabling surrender is a political not military act.  Likewise, in a conflict with Iran, nuclear weapons would not be required militarily for the US to defeat Iran, and their use would only be ordered if that was the only way for a political surrender, or in an act of revenge for domestic political satisfaction.  http://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/world-war-ii-the-final-chapter/wwii-victory-in-japan/would-japan-have-surrendered-without-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300

First we need to look at the environmental consequences of an atomic blast; then we have to consider unemployment levels and the push for abortion due to our rising population levels; then we consider how discriminatory this is against an Islamic minority.  Are there any endangered species in the proposed target area?  What are the President's re-election prospects? We will need to appoint a committee to study this.

Let's get real here. The US population in 1941 was approx. 100 million. Now 325 million. So the surprise attack by Iran would be approx. 10,000 (a multiple of 3). Then to put the invasion scale in proper proportion the expect casualties (killed/maimed/wounded) would be 1.8 million. Now run your survey and see if the average American would drop the bomb when 1/2 percent of our population, or 1 percent of the male population died. That would be a good bite out of our 18-30 year old male population. And ask the women how they feel about being widowed, or no one to marry and be fathers to their children. Then talk about the economic devastation. We got an angry population when we lost approx. 5,000 men/women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just think about us loosing 1.8 million. On that scale the President would be relieved of his/her duties if he/she didn't drop the bomb(s).

Make a more reasonable/realistic scenario. Iran/North Korea sell a bomb to a terrorist organization and explode it in Boston/NYC. Then ask them how they feel. I would bet your approval to drop a bomb(s) would be off the charts.

Don't confuse the tool (in this case, a nuclear bomb) with the desired outcome which is to force someone else to follow our/your will.  In their day chariots, the English long bow, mobile cannon and rifled musketry all made the killing necessary to achieve goals much more efficient.  And war was recognized to be a horrible affair.

We had only TWO bombs at that time so could not waste one on a demo. I worked with a veteran from the Pacific Operation and he told me in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that he was GLAD we dropped the bombs.

@Sailesh Kapadia  My family that was on Okinawa had the same sediments as your veteran.  After a lifetime of observation, the "wrongness" of dropping the bomb increases with one's distance from likely involvement in an Iwo Jima-like fight.  I'm surprised that the old argument that Truman "just" wanted to impress the Russians because the Japanese would have surrendered soon anyway hasn't come up.  Of course, that leads to a morass of 'what if's'.

In preparation to invade Japan, the US invaded Okinawa in June, 1945 and it fell to the Allies on June 21, 1945.The battle had been the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War.Thirty-four Allied ships, mostly amphibious landing boats but including 12 destroyers and 3 Victory Ships (Logan, Hobbs and Canada) had been sunk, mostly by kamikaze attacks. Three hundred sixty-eight ships had been damaged.

Seven hundred and sixty-three Allied aircraft had been lost.  American casualties amounted to 12,000 killed and 36,000 wounded.  Japan had lost 66,000 killed and 7,400 captured while another estimated 100,000 civilians had been killed or wounded.  Four thousand nine hundred Navy men had died, mostly as a result of kamikaze attacks. 

The next step was to invade Japan but 6 weeks later President Harry Truman dropped both of our atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  We only had two.

The total loss of life from Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined did not equal the losses at Okinawa

A full scale bombing and invasion of Japan would have easily caused a million casualties.

Your survey set up a false assumption.  You proposed that the trade off was 20,000 American military in a conventional attack or 100,000 Iranian civilians in a nuclear attack, as if no Iranian civilians would have died in a conventional attack.  In reality, in a conventional attack, America would likely lose 20,000 military, and Iran would loose hundreds of thousands of civilians.  This is the choice Truman faced, and he made the correct one.  Pippin.  

I've never been to any of Japanese War museums but have spent much time in Japan. It's apparent they do not acknowledge there imperialistic past, brutality and immorality on a scale only matched by the Nazis and the Holocaust, in their traditions and teachings. My Father was in the Army had fought in New Guinea and the Phillipines in WWII. He was assigned to occupied Japan after the surrender. As a result I've read more books about the Pacific War, the events leading up to it, the Japanese and American cultural and political perspectives and leaders on both sides, than I can count.

The Japanese Military dictatorship, with the support of Emperor Hirohito, subjugated an already pliable and internationally insecure Japanese population with lies, propaganda, intimidation and nationalism to a pursue a perverse level of destiny and to take control and subjugate all of the Asian subcontinent and oceanic areas and people as racially superior conquerors. The attack on Pearl Harbor was to buy time to solidify their gains long enough in the hope that the "weak" American population would not fight or fight only long enough to recover some possessions and sue for peace, leaving Japan with most of her gains.

No revisionist history is possible. Facts. The Japanese were arming millions of citizens, children with sticks, women with knives, old farmers with hoes to repel the American assault on mainland Japan, already being planned. They were being told that capture by American Devils meant rape, torture and even canabilism. An assault on Japan would have resulted in unfathomable numbers of dead Japanese and an estimated one million American and allied soldiers. A warning nuclear bomb in an uninhabited area would not have worked. Even after two were dropped, a sizable amount of Japanese military and civilian leaders and population, did not want to surrender. Two on major cities were barely enough. Also consider we did not have an unlimited amount of warheads and the Japanese were on the verge of starvation.

I can't imagine today of a scenario where we would use a strategic nuclear weapon (big destructive as opposed to tactical, less so) preemptively. I can only see the use of one or more as retaliation to one or more used on us, or possibly a large scale and deadly chemical, biological or "dirty bomb" (dispersed deadly and widespread radioactive material) used on use ONLY IF we can ascertain exactly the country or entity that attacked us with a definable area of operation. The traditional use of nuclear weapons as nuclear deterrence has to be rethought however. A miniaturized device smuggled into one of our cities by terrorists or even another country using terrorists as proxies is possible on the horizon.

One day soon our President MAY have to consider preemptive use IF the intelligence of upcoming use against us is assured and a nuke is the logical and only option. Good luck with that decision.

The importance of the nuclear weapon is a) shock and b) our willingness to use it.  ISIS is a perfect target.  ISIS is powerful because they are winning.  A well placed demonstration on the right target followed by more precise conventional targeting would deliver the message.  Support would dry up quickly is we showed resolve.  Lives would be saved.

The generations that followed the baby boomers have little knowledge of the enormous sacrifice of their grandparents and great-grandparents during World War II.  The millennials and Generation X cannot begin to fathom the threat to the nation that existed when Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo and Stalin commanded millions of men and women.  Its beyond their comprehension. Most of Europe was occupied by the Nazis. France, Belgium, Norway and Russia were overrun. More than 50 million were slaughtered. Genocide was the norm. Troops stormed beaches into mechanized death. At the time of Japan's surrender there were still almost 3 million Japanese under arms.  

The atomic bombs,  followed up immediately by B-29 Super-fortress bombing ended Japan's will to fight. One million Americans were preparing for the invasion of Japan. The slaughter on both sides would have been in the millions. Questioning the bombing 71 years later in hindsight is ridiculous foolishness. Ask the veterans who returned home.

By all definitions many of us may not even have been born...Americans and Japanese...if those nukes had not been used. I can only imagine the carnage both in civilian and troop deaths on BOTH sides if an invasion of the mainland of Japan had occurred.  One could say that the civilians and troops in both cities were sacrificed for the obvious demonstration needed to END the war....their sacrifice allowed the survival of their country, their future as a powerful economy and even their basic religion. Imagine if such a weapon had not demonstrated its destructive power..military powers going into the future would not be so desired not to experience the result again. Unfortunately, I could not say the same about folks like ISIS if they ever got their hands on such a weapon...Iran and N Korea too where martyrdom or terrorism is an irrational element of their govt or with N Korea the lack of sensitivity towards human rights. And who has/will allow nukes for Iran with missiles...Obama.

Dr. Sagan,

You could have read a few books on the role of nuclear weapons before banging out this piece.

Nuclear weapons are deterrents. Their role is to deter states and non-state actors who possess or have access to nuclear weapons from using them against our homeland and our military forces.

Our use of nuclear weapons is predicated on the principle of response with proportionate force. The state that uses nuclear weapons against us or provides nuclear weapons to non-state actors who then use them against us may expect a swift, sure, and proprtionate response against an in-kind target.

I, for one, have no issue with our nuclear deterrence strategy. Do I wish nuclear weapons didn't exist? Absolutely. However, they do exist and their proliferation is fact, not fiction.

The question you meant to ask is whether the United States would or should again use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. The answer is obvious. Adversaries who have nuclear weapons would respond in-kind.

Here's hoping your research isn't funded by taxpayer dollars. You've added nothing new. You're only trying to resurrect a dead debate.

Just got back from Japan where we visited the Hiroshima museum. But also went with my wife, and friend who lives in Tokyo, to the Yasakuni War Museum where every Japanese war atrocity is rationalized, including the invasion of Manchuria. The Hiroshima museum tries to spin the Japanese as the real victims of WW II. All the lurid photos were of children. Some Japanese may buy this narrative, but none of our group did. 

I should add that I asked one Japanese guide about the decision to drop the bomb and his comment was that the military controlled the government and they were never going to surrender otherwise. 

iran. sea of glass. happy dance.

Barry no, HRC maybe, Donald yes.

Re: "almost 15% in 2015 compared with 4% in 1945—now said that the U.S. shouldn’t have dropped any nuclear weapons on Japan." I would posit that these fine folks would have a different opinion were they to have viewed this from a beach at Iwo Jima, a carrier under fire in the Pacific, or a prison camp in Batan.  

Last month, I attended the funeral for 91 year old Jim Woods in Shreveport, a WWII Marine, the only man in his 44-man platoon not killed or wounded on Okinawa. It was his third campaign since '42. He went on to Tokyo harbor and was there for the 2 Sep 45 surrender ceremony. There was not one Marine still alive in the Pacific who thought he would survive a Japanese Homeland invasion. Truman's decision was the most difficult, consequential decision a US president may have ever made. Thankfully, he had the courage to make it. I'm glad Jim Woods, at least, got to live to age 91.

better to be seen as a crazed grizzly than a supine sheep

As former Senator Phil Gramm liked to say , "I look forward to the day the lion will lie down with the lamb. And on that day, I want the US to be the lion. "

Now, as a Liberal Trump Republican, Dr Sagan, do I think" they" necessarily SHOULD hold back a president who might consider using nuclear weapons in the crucible of war?.  What do we have the weapons for?  What good are they if our enemies think we will never use them?

The Japanese during WW II had been indoctrinated by a state-imposed religion of hate every bit as horrible as that imposed by ISIS and its like.  Captured living American soldiers were routinely used for bayonet practice to make Japanese recruits  comfortable with doing it on their own in battle.  What do you think the kamikaze attacks on our ships at Okinawa was if not suicide bombing?  Twelve thousand Americans were killed on Okinawa and more than 70,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts.  Had we had to invade the home island of Japan conservative estimates of American casualties were over a million.

We firebombed Tokyo and their other big cities and they still didn't surrender.  It took the A bombs.  Both of them.

A more meaningful question about the use of nuclear weapons today would apply to North Korea.  In this case you have a country that currently has primitive nuclear weapons and is trying to develop delivery mechanisms, including sea launched ballistic missiles.

We may soon be facing the prospect of an insane leader with the ability to deliver mass destruction.  Put to Americans the question of whether we should launch a preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea and see what the answer is.

@John Boebinger @Matthew Cush In October 1964, I visited Nagasaki while on a brief leave while serving with the US Army in Japan. I was shocked by the pictures in the museum there of the destruction wrought by the bomb, just 19 years after the event. I was absolutely amazed by the reception my friend and I were given by the people of Nagasaki, and then by Japanese businessmen the next day on the overnight train back to Tokyo. We could not buy a meal, a beer or almost anything else. My opinions of the Japanese people were forever changed for the better. 

@John Boebinger @Matthew Cush The majority of  educated Japanese most definitely DO accept culpability for their part in the war- as evidenced by the massive amounts of foreign/economic development aid given to China and other asian countries since the war ended.

However, Japanese etiquette strictly forbids discussion of sensitive or controversial topics that might offend others (unless with friends and inebriated) so those views may not be evident to outsiders, especially Americans.

Modern Japanese are mostly very ashamed and almost incredulous of their wartime past- they view it the way most modern americans view our history of slavery.

@Matthew Cush 

No, they don't.  They still don't accept their culpability for the war itself and the war crimes committed by Japanese forces.  The Rape of Nanking is completely ignored in Japanese education, as one example.  The Japanese see themselves as the victims of the war.

The Germans did a better job of coming to grips with their past.

War involves killing no matter whether you do it with a club or a nuclear bomb.  The key question is are we as a people willing to kill civilians in large numbers to achieve a military aim?  I suspect that we are if we perceive those civilians as supportive of military action being taken against us (as was the case in WWII where we killed large numbers of both German and Japanese civilians with our conventional as well before we dropped the A-bombs.  

If the question was would we, if we could, eliminate the mullahs and the various Islamic self-described holy warriors intent on killing our civilians without harming their civilians by putting our military personnel in harm's way to do it or instead drop A-bombs which which would give us victory without military losses, we might put our military personnel at risk if our potential casualties were low.  If they were projected to be high, we'd probably make the same decision Truman did.

I'm curious as to why some people in both surveys favored the belief that the proper course may have been dropping the initial bomb on a remote target to "demonstrate its power" as a means of convincing Japan to surrender.

We dropped the first one on an actual city that had been relatively undamaged until then, killed approx. 80,000 people in a single flash of light and left a smoldering ruin and that "demonstration" did not convince the Japanese to surrender until the power of the weapon was "demonstrated" a second time to establish it could be replicated.

The survey mentioned in this article is meaningless. You cannot reproduce the environment of August, 1945, by asking such a question. The Americans of that period had been reading news reports for years of massive combat death and wounded tolls, torture by Japanese captors, torture of civilians, etc. You don't recreate that situation with a five minute phone call. This makes Sarah Palin seem intelligent and that is saying something. 

My sympathies with the surveyists.  You can't get the same state of mind one held in 1945 after 25k GIs got killed or wounded just taking the miserable island of Iwo Jima.

"In April 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally adopted a planning paper [for the invasion of Japan] giving a range of possible casualties based on experience in...the Pacific. Given a troop list of 766,700 men and a 90-day campaign, the US Sixth Army could be expected to suffer...514,072 casualties (including 134,556 dead and missing)".

I think the US population, in this case literally, would have burned Ike at the stake if he didn't use the bomb.

@Aaron Zalewski 

It wasn't Ike's call.  He was commander in Europe and had already won.  The decision was with Truman.

By any metric that on use the Nuclear weapons on Japan saved live. During the invasion of Okinawa 541,000 SM were committed, 250,000 combat arms folks, 12,500 KIA and 55,000 WIA, the loses in civilian and military on the Japanese side was 77,000+ KIA and 150,000 civilians who were killed, about 1/2 the population. The invasion of Japan would have involved 6M US and British forces, if you use the metrics of Okinawa the Allied losses would have been 300,000 KIA and 1,320,000 WIA.( compare that with the 291,000 WIA and 672,000 WIA the whole rest of the war). Japanese losses would have been in the order of 35,000,000 soldiers and civilians kill. The war would have lasted well into 1946 and frankly the home front may not have held up that long. 

Yes, I would have authorized the use of the two nuclear weapons and if Japan did not surrender the I would have authorized additions weapons to be used.

If this was China, the title alone would cause this piece to be censored.

Forgive me, but this is an absurd, un-American-esque title.

"Would the U.S. Drop the Bomb Again?"

Somebody at another website suggested we should nuke Mecca. That's a bit too extreme. I don't agree with that idea.

The survey could have been more interesting had it been more realistic. Why 20,000 US fatalities in an invasion of Iran, only 1/3 of the casualties in the Vietnam war? 

The deal with the atomic bomb was that an invasion of Japan would have massive cost on both sides, far more than 20,000. Also the ongoing pacific war was killing 250,000 people a month so people were anxious to end it. 

Factors similar to these should be presented to people when asking them about the bomb.

@David Mcmahon 

In fairness to those giving low numbers of expected US casualties, a rather low number (46,000) was given by MacArthur as his estimate for the invasion of Kyushu as the first part of Operation Downfall slated for November, 1945.  Of course, MacArthur was giving political numbers.

The Navy wanted to blockade Japan and starve it into surrender.  The Army Air Corp wanted to continue bombing it into submission.  MacArthur wanted an invasion, and in early 1945 he submitted the 46,000 figure.  It assumed about 300,000 Japanese soldiers on the island.  Then came Okinawa and Iwo Jima, and new intelligence estimates that there would be more than 900,000 Japanese troops defending the island.  Nevertheless, to preclude alternatives from being implemented MacArthur stuck with his 46,000 casualty estimate.

He was totally wrong, of course, but the 46,000 figure is technically the official estimate of US casualties for the invasion.

@David Mcmahon @John Boebinger 

I'm not disagreeing with you as to what the real numbers would be.  I think MacArthur was putting out political numbers so he could lead an invasion force larger than Eisenhower's (Old Doug was extremely jealous of the adulation being accorded to Ike).  Once the invasion was started he knew that Washington wouldn't pull the plug once casualties went beyond the 46,000 mark.  They'd just keep sending troops until the thing was done.  I've seen numbers as high as 1 million US dead.  It's difficult to know because it would depend on just when the Japanese would actually surrender, and how many troops the Russians could put on Japanese soil before Operation Coronet in March, 1946.

Still, the official casualty estimate by the theater commander, the man who would lead the invasion, was 46,000.  That's why so many people think it would not have been a large number.

@John Boebinger @David Mcmahon

The only estimates worth considering are looking at the casualties that actually occurred on Saipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. As Mr. San did below, pointing out Okinawa's numbers its pretty clear an invasion of Japan would have been ugly in the extreme. This was known and discussed in private regardless of what the political numbers were. 

As far as starving them out, the hideous deaths of millions by starvation doesn't strike me as more humane than a nuclear weapon.