The bombings has to be seen in the context of the unimaginable horrors orchestrated by the Japanese state that had to be stopped, at almost any cost.
Almost...
Another way to see it is they burdened future generations as an expedient measure to save the lives of the people now in the past.
Another another way to look at the bomb is preventing another world war.
An interesting historical point is Japan had largely been defeated by the time the bombs were dropped. And they had the option to bomb an uninhabited (or very lightly) part of Japan's territory as a show of force. But, instead they specifically chose to irradiate civilians.
They burdened future generations?
Because future generations have to safehold and not misuse extremely destructive knowledge. We have a world where North Korea has nuclear weapons, but do they have the ethics to use them responsibly, understanding their full potential? Do the other countries with nuclear bombs have that ethical responsibility, especially over generations? Cuz that big red button is going to be around for a while.
If it weren't the USA, it would have been the Nazis or Russians who invented it.
One would argue given enough time some kind of civilizations ending event is an inevitability. With nukes we're just increasing that risk.
I always like to think of it more as a race between evolution and extinction.
Yes, I would say the threat of dying in nuclear hell fire (if you were lucky) a bit of a burden.
lol
This is of course just my opinion, but no horrors, imaginable or otherwise, that the Japanese could've possibly orchestrated at the time, with the means they had available, would've come close to the devastation caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Look up the Rape of Nanking. Studying that alone made me believe the bombs were warranted. That's not even including Unit 731, and the fact that the Japanese government still will not acknowledge their attrocities.
The bombs were a sad necessity to stop the monstrosities.
What does that atrocity have to do with the civilians who were nuked?
Would you have preferred napalm, like Tokyo?
Or a ground invasion? Like Berlin?
It has to do with them in that their government would only listen to the sound of their screams. That was the only way to stop them.
Except the government didn't give a shit about the peasants or they would have surrendered earlier when so many were dying from previous bombings and the war was already obviously hopelessly lost. Let's pretend what you say is correct, do you think Americans should get nuked because of the US carrying out the Iraq invasion and occupation along with the many other war crimes that the US carries out on a regular basis? We'll find out just how much the government cares about these screams.
Maybe not nuked because the invasion of Iraq was a far cry from Unit 731 alone, but America certainly fucked around and found out with 9/11. The government very much cry over the screams of those affected by 9/11 as well.
Thanks for actually pointing out a specific atrocity committed by the Japanese, which did result in higher casualties than the bomb, though it happened over months rather than minutes, but ok, I'll accept it.
Still, the point is, what atrocities were the Japanese capable of perpetrating at the time the bombs were dropped, that were prevented by it, and couldn't have been prevented in a different way. There's a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would've been enough.
There's a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would've been enough.
They believe their Emperor was a God. The invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in the Japanese fighting to the last man, woman, and child. Millions of civilian casualties. You suggest a test of the bomb would have forced Japanese surrender. But history tells the exact opposite story. There was a 3 day gap between the first and second bomb. Japanese high command thought the allies only had one bomb, refused to surrender. They only surrendered after the second bomb, when they realized this was repeatable.
let's not say nukes are good. did the nukes undo those atrocities?
No, but they stopped more from occuring.
I will say nukes are bad, though.
>they stopped more from occuring
this can't be proven
"The trolley might have stopped on its own"
it wasn't a trolley though, was it? it was individuals making decisions.
Japan surrendered due to the Bomb drops. This prevented the invasion of Japan that would have resulted in the total eradication of life on those islands due to the US's experience on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese Isles would be glass statues without that surrender as the US would not risk troops and fire bombing would have done the job without the Nuke.
>Japan surrendered due to the Bomb drops.
we will never know whether they would have surrendered without them on the same time table.
The US would not have stopped without total surrender. That would not have come without massive loss of life. Whether or not more died to the bomb is a moot question. The better question is how many would have survived without it and would it have been classified as a genocide afterward.
There was no distinction between civilian and soldier on the eastern front after Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the civilians fought as combatants.
The Japanese still exist due to the bomb and the Emperor.
>The US would not have stopped without total surrender. That would not have come without massive loss of life.
neither of these statements can be proven.
>The Japanese still exist due to the bomb and the Emperor.
nuking two cities is genocide, and it isn't a favor to the survivors.
It’s fine to believe that — I’ve been wrong before, too.
Of course, thats your prerogative, but then, quite frankly, you don't know enough about Japanese war crimes.
Fight war crimes with war crimes
Debatable. But as always with this topic; what else would force the Japanese surrender?
Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace? Maybe the complete distruction of their Navy and Air forces? Maybe the blockaid we had on the island? Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace?
Oh boy, fun! By all means, provide a source that states that Japan would have surrendered irrespective of the atomic bombings. This could be amusing...
Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down.
Lmao, in your source, the narrator correctly claims that Emepeor Hirohito had to intervene and force the military to stand down following the atomic bombings. Literally, the first three minutes of the video.... gtfo
My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay.
All that was needed...
My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
Are you arguing that the strategic bombings were justified to end the war, but the atomic bombings were not? That's a unique opinion, to be sure.
Now you're just being argumentative throwing out accusations cause you got sourced. You don't want to defend your position anymore so your attempting to shift the argument entirely.
Defend your stance or shut it.
What? You provided a source that states just that?...
Still trying to shift the goal posts. I will not be responding to your 5 second skim of a source you didn't read because you think you gotta win an argument above all else. You asked for a source that showed the bombings were unnecessary. You got it. Defend the point or shut it. If you want to argue the finer details of the American strategic bombing campaign and it's effectiveness then get a history degree. Because that is NOT the argument being made here. Neither by me or by you. Attempting to bring that up is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Your source states, based on your quote, that the atomic bombings would be unnecessary if the strategic bombing continued... and that's your argument for why the atomic bombings were unjustified?
I'm sorry, what war crimes did the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima commit?
I'm sorry, what war crimes did the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima commit?
None, but the state that governed them did, and the people are part of the state. What's you point?
My point is that targeting civilians is never okay. And if we are going to open the box to "well the state committed war crimes so civilians had to be targeted" I'd like to know your opinions on both 9/11 and October 7th, cause I bet there's gonna be some inconsistency to your belief.
But that whole argument concedes the point that the nukes stopped Japan. They did not. Japan was already sueing for peace. They were willing to negotiate and we know that what they were and were not willing to give up lines up with what we did end up agreeing to post war anyways. The nukes were pointless on top of being abhorrent.
You are incredibly naive. Total war between industrialized nations, as happened in WW2, is won or lost on industrial capacity. States literally need to cripple their enemy's ability and will to wage war, which means destroying industrial production, food production, access to safe water, and civil infrastructure. And that is why there should never be another great power war.
As for the USA's use of nuclear weapons in Japan, they weren't used to "win" the war. As you say, the Japanese were effectively beaten. Nukes were used to force an immediate surrender, saving millions of both American and Japanese lives.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
Sure, but that wasn't known at the time so it wasn't a relevant factor in the decision to drop the bombs.
But it was though. We had intercepted the communications between the Japanese foreign affairs head and the ambassador to the Soviet Union. The ambassador was attempting to get the Soviets to mediate a peace with the allies as they were not yet at war. We had their entire negotiation strategy. We had their intent and knew their wants, must haves and no go's. All of which lines up with the peace we ultimately would have.
We 100% knew. All we had to do was sit down and negotiate.
The Japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally, and that was the internationally agreed endpoint of the war with Germany and Japan. Unconditional surrender and occupation was considered necessary to completely break the German and Japanese spirit and ensure no third world war. The Allies didn't want a repeat of the inter-war period between WW1 and WW2 where Germany was not occupied and could tell itself that it hadn't really lost WW1. The Allies agreed that the way to avoid this problem was to comprehensively defeat and then force unconditional surrender on the Axis powers, followed by occupation, re-education, and rebuilding. When you look at Japan and Germany's success after WW2, it's hard to argue that the Allies were wrong to take that stance. The atomic bombs are a side issue. The invasion of Japan would have been so much worse.
After what japan had done, there should have been more bombs dropped.
And I know your argument is disingenuous because the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people.
But that whole argument concedes the point that the nukes stopped Japan. They did not. Japan was already sueing for peace. They were willing to negotiate and we know that what they were and were not willing to give up lines up with what we did end up agreeing to post war anyways. The nukes were pointless on top of being abhorrent.
You better have a good source if you're going to make such a bold statement.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
I disagree. The proliferation of Fascist ideology, in Asia alone, would've far eclipsed the devastation of two nuclear payloads.
You're assuming that dropping those bombs was the only way to stop the Japanese.
Three things:
-This is moving the goal post of the argument that I was replying to and irrelevant to this conversation.
-Theorizing about the consequences at stake in the war doesn't assume anything retrospectively. The decision to deploy nukes was not made with the knowledge we possess after the fact.
-It's very likely that any other option that would finally result in the complete cessation of an enemy as ideologically tenacious as Imperial Japan would've far exceeded a price that was able to be paid that late into the second world war.
You made an implicit assumption, and that assumption is very possibly wrong. You are "theorizing about the consequences" just as much as me by making that assumption.
For example, I can think of at least one way the US could've tried to avoid the huge civilian death toll: drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they're next. I don't claim to say it would've worked for sure, but at least they would've tried.
He's not theorizing, he's summarizing decades of historians' research. We know, for example, with the benefit of hindsight, that your idea would not have worked- it would have lead only to countless deaths via nuke, and then a long, slow slog through the meat grinder for troops and civilians.
How do we know this? Because we have Japanese communications from the time- and they basically sum up to something along the lines of "They don't have the balls to use the bomb against people again." with a side dash of "they don't have more bombs to throw at people."
Exploding the first one over water, the second one over a city on people, and then NOT dropping a third one because we didn't have anymore would have proved them right, and without a surrender it would have lead to millions of dead Americans and Japanese. They made so many purple hearts preparing for that invasion in 1945 that we still haven't gone through the backlog, 80 years later.
Now think about it without the benefit of hindsight. You know that culturally, they refuse to surrender. You know they see massive losses as completely acceptable, civilian, military, and suicide bombers. You know they want to try and grind the US down, make them give up because of the sheer number of troops dead. You know they're trying desperately to negotiate a favorable surrender where they can save face, maintain their 'experiments', and maintain their military, which is exactly the sort of thing that lead to WW2 in the first place. Finally you know you only have two bombs. Use them wrong, and the deaths, crippling, and wounding of millions of your own country's soldiers is directly on your head. Use them right, and you might get some surrenders.
Frankly speaking, dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost didn't end the war. The second bomb was what finally changed the mind of the emperor, because he bought the bluff that if we had two we would throw at people, we had more. Even then, there was instantly a coup to try and halt the surrender process- and they thought this guy was literally an incarnation/speaker/appointed of god. That's how much the military hated the idea of surrendering.
And finally, do keep in mind- every time the US bombed a Japanese city, they dropped leaflets warning the civilians to get out. By all accounts, they were actually highly effective.
To make it clear, dropping the bombs was a horrible thing. That it killed so many civilians who wouldn't- or more likely couldn't - get out in time, even if warned, is horrific. Leaflets are good and all, but that doesn't meanyou have anywhere to go, or the infrastructure, and beyond that, the Emporer was executing anyone who tried to leave bombing areas. (Seriously, possession of a leaflet was grounds for immediate execution.) But the alternatives to dropping the bombs were judged, at the time, to be worse. And I believe that their decision to do so were understandable with the knowledge they had, the options they had, and the consequences to their own troops if they didn't.
Very well written comment that will no doubt be under appreciated lol
I appreciate well written comments. ysjet's response was detailed and well explained, and didn't just say "of course nothing else would've stopped them", but actually went in depth to explain why (which, of course, I don't fully agree with, but I'm here to discuss and hear other people's opinion).
Thank you for the very well written write up. It reflects my exact thoughts on the dropping of the bombs, but laid out in a much more coherent manner.
Dropping the bombs was by all means a horror unleashed to stop an even greater horror from occuring. A trolley problem incarnate almost. Personally I think trying to moralize the bombs at all is reductive and ignores many of the facts of the situation and creates an idealized version of how wars are/where conducted that simply is not real.
Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, I don't claim to say for sure that my idea would've worked, though you seem convinced it definitely wouldn't have, in hindsight. Yet, there are many other reports that point in the opposite direction, namely, that the Japanese were already beaten and likely to surrender anyways. I agree the culture was always to never surrender, so I doubt it, but the idea of being instantly destroyed after seeing the a-bomb in action could've changed somebody's mind.
And if that didn't work, maybe there was a way to avoid targeting civilians, while still hitting military targets, but it seems to me the intention was to hit civilians in large number, and that's what I don't like (and no, leaflets aren't really enough).
Also, I didn't know the US only had two bombs, so I did a bit of research, and actually, it seems a third one was gonna be ready pretty soon after. But then again, I'm glad a third one wasn't used...
You're welcome for the details.
So I see 'they were ready to surrender' a lot in this thread, and while that's not... false, it's not exactly what it sounds like. They were ready to come to the table, yes, absolutely, but the problem was that they wanted to dictate their surrender - they wanted to keep their military, they wanted their industry rebuilt, they wanted the current government to stay in power- it was less of a surrender or more of a cessation of hostilities. Japan was 'ready to surrender' in much the same way Russia was 'ready to come to the peace table' about a year ago.
This was geopolitically not realistic, for a number of reasons- for one, allowing that kind of conditional surrender with Germany is directly what lead to WW2 in the first place, and nobody had any intentions of repeating that mistake. There was concern, given the view on surrendering, that it wouldn't actually be peace, or a surrender, merely a delaying tactic to build up forces and entrench. For another, Russia was bearing down on Japan, and the Allies wanted to limit Russia's geopolitical influence by preventing another East/West Germany. While the extra troops would have undoubtedly help save American lives, it would have ended in significant Russian and Japanese deaths, as well significant geopolitical issues long-term (East/West Germany worked so well, after all :P )
Long story short, the Allies absolutely wanted an unconditional surrender, exactly the kind of thing the Emperor and the military refused to contemplate, even after a single bomb was dropped. The military still refused to consider it even after the second, so seeing the a-bomb in action once would likely, I feel, not have done much.
RE: hitting civilians in large numbers, my understanding is less that they were deliberately targeting civilians, and more that they were looking for military targets that were geographically located in a position that would enhance the bomb's effects without considering civilians too much. You could argue in a very real way that they were deployed as terror weapons, or perhaps 'shock and awe' weapons if you want to be slightly less confrontational. Civilian casualties were, much like the entire rest of WW2, not much of a consideration- WW2 was considered a total war, and the Geneva Convention would not be signed for another 4 years, directly as a result of the atrocities of WW2. At the time, civilians were not considered something to inherently avoid unless you had some sort of political reason to do so (hence the leaflets). The most obvious example of this is the firebombings of Tokyo, which killed far, far more civilians in arguably far more painful ways, but there's plenty of example in the European front from all sides as well. Again, they were making decisions with the knowledge and viewpoints of the time. Doesn't excuse it, but trying to moralize decisions made in the past with current morals is always kind of a waste of time, in my opinion.
Regarding the third shot, there was, at the time, no bombs available when the uranium Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima was dropped, but they had prepped for another. They immediately turned towards trying to prepare another (Nagasaki's plutonium-based Fat Man), and managed to rush it to completion in just a week, but keep in mind that these were highly dangerous, experimental one-off prototypes being produced- it's why all of the planned subsequent bombs were of the fat man design, which was significantly safer, and America was completely out of uranium at that. It was only able to be rushed to completion so much because General Groves always planned to use two, and a lot of the logistics were already worked out and prepped beforehand. Before more plutonium bombs could be made, Woodrow Wilson called off the production. So yes, America was technically out of bombs, and completely out of uranium.
Arguably, America could have created more plutonium bombs, but was limited by the availability of plutonium (which is lengthy to turn into weapons grade), the speed at which they could be safely produced (and Fat Man was, frankly, very unsafely produced, it should have taken nearly 3 weeks to create), and America only had a small amount of weapons-grade plutonium stockpiled. So technically, both positions are correct- America only had two bombs, and they certainly could have made more, but they were limited by time and materials, and lack of willingness. They had, perhaps, one or two more fat mans they would be able to drop, with perhaps 3+ week production times for each (because no logistics were prepared for it), before it would have dropped to something like iirc 6 months per bomb due to lack of prepared plutonium.
So yes, one could argue there could have been more bombs after the first two, but it was generally considered by the American military and also the President that two was the 'magic number,' so there wasn't any setup for them, so they would not have been cranked out anywhere near as fast. Nobody believed that one bomb would trigger a surrender (because of, again, the cultural viewpoints on surrendering) as well the implicit belief that it would be a one-off prototype that could not be repeated.
If two did not, and it was widely considered it would, nobody believed 3 would be any more likely to trigger a surrender than two did, and might even convince them to fight harder. In addition, due to the effects of radiation, America would have limited to how they could use the bombs one the land invasion started- with Russia from the north, America from the south-east, and most of central Japan firebombed, there's not a lot of good targets without hitting allies.
I don't even know how to continue this conversation. I didn't have to assume anything about Imperial Japan's reception to alternative methods of prompted surrender to arrive at the conclusion that the theoretical devastation of Fascism proliferating is at all comparable to the nuclear bombs that were deployed.
So, are you a stoned emo man, or a stone demoman, or what?
You've solved my secret username puzzle.
Also, yes.
You're right, this conversation is pointless. You keep making unproven assumptions, even in your last reply, and don't even know you're doing it. Maybe search "assumption" in the dictionary? Anyways, good luck.
? Choose your battles more carefully.
drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they’re next
The Trinity tests would have most likely been observed by Japanese spies/network, so the Japanese leadership already knew of the destructive nature of the bomb. And yet they didn't surrender when ordered, until the bomb was finally used on their citizenry.
The trinity tests weren't even close to Japan's shore... yes, spies would've seen it, or heard about it, but regular army people, generals, etc. and the emperor would only know a second or third hand story.
Compare that to walking down the street and seeing a giant mushroom cloud at a safe but not so far distance, potentially with a large part of Japan's navy gone in a blink (and maybe a bit of a tsunami as well). Let's say this was timed such that the emperor himself would likely observe it. We can't know for sure, and I concede that Japanese culture was very much "victory or death" at that time, but seeing it in person might, just might've changed some people's mind, with a much smaller civilian death toll.
Doesn't matter what the population thinks ultimately, it only matters what the leadership thinks, and the leadership would have gotten a full report on the destructive nature, and the ramifications of, from the Trinity test.
So blowing up another one off on the Tokyo Harbor wouldn't have added anything to what the leadership already knew about their chances of winning the war.
Trust me, if the leadership saw this first hand it would make a much bigger impression.
Anyways, I think the conversation derailed a bit, I cannot claim this would've worked for sure, I don't have a time machine.
My point is, this was done with the intention to cause mass civilian casualties, which today one could argue it being a war crime (and that's why I don't approve of it), but of course, the Geneva convention didn't exist yet at the time.
Maybe there was a different way to get the Japanese to surrender, with fewer casualties, but it doesn't look like the US really tried.
It is also interesting that the movie focuses on the scientists developing the bomb over everything else. There is a removal of the protagonists from seeing the destruction of their work, but that was done on purpose by the military. Even within that, you see a discussion of morality of the bomb by its developers and that the scientists, in almost all cases, have a more nuanced understanding of the destructive power they are developing and the ethics of using such a device.
I think that's always the way. Compartmentalisation. Though I don't blame the film for not showing the horrors taking place in those cities. At the time Oppenheimer wouldn't have access to those images, and so I guess neither do we. On the other hand - unless I miss remember - we do get to see him watching a film reel. So, maybe they could have shoehorned the scenes of destruction. But, personally, I think it's enough to see the effect it has on Oppenheimer. Any more could be classed as prurient voyeurism.
I don't know of you or @HobbitFoot@lemmy.world is aware but the screenplay of the movie was written in first person. That's how focused Nolan was from the very beginning. No way he was going to show actual bombings.
Also, funny that you mentioned compartmentalization. This article opens with same observation, and in turn refers to Matt Damon's character in the movie.
I don't think they could show the bombings as Oppenheimer wasn't there. However, it is plausible that he saw some newsreel footage of the aftermath. They could show that.
Is there a Japanese film like Oppenheimer but from their perspective? I've seen plenty of stuff that feels influenced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including the horrors from a perspective unique to people who have first hand experience; but it's all fictional.
Like, is there maybe a movie about the dude who survived both bombs?
I don't have a full grasp of it but Barefoot Gen (1983) is on my watch list and deals with the topic of atomic bombs
E: Ah... you wanted a documentary. This isn't it.
Also that the alternative was burning cities with the people still in them, and they'd seen that, which was have been more horrifying and slow than a nuclear conflagration.
The main way the atomic bombs worked was by setting everything on fire. The radiation was secondary, and much less significant.
Don't forget the blast itself; The bomb dropped on Hiroshima first knocked much of the city over, and the fires started and spread later.
Not trying to downplay what Japan did, but I don't think that's why they dropped the bombs. Russia was closing in and the US didn't seem keen on having to divide up Japan like they did in Europe. I'd say it's more likely civilian targets were bombed to put social pressure on the emperor and government to accept defeat.
These bombs don't discriminate, so even put into context like you say, it's still not a good argument
So much conjecture, but if you have any good sources, feel free to share.
For Truman, news of the successful Trinity test set up a momentous choice: whether or not to deploy the world’s first weapon of mass destruction. But it also came as a relief, as it meant the United States wouldn’t have to rely on the increasingly adversarial Soviet Union to enter World War II against Japan.
By the morning of August 9, 1945, Soviet troops had invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, but there was still no word from the Japanese government regarding surrender.
Moreover, regular incendiary bombing raids were destroying huge portions of one city after another, food and fuel were in short supply, and millions of civilians were homeless. General Curtis LeMay, the commander of American air forces in the Pacific, estimated that by the end of September he would have destroyed every target in Japan worth hitting. The argument that Japan would have collapsed by early fall is speculative but powerful.
I don't know what Truman thought, but I do think saving US soldiers and avoiding The Soviet Union must have weighed in on the decision to nuke cities.
I know history.com isn't that great of a source, but I have to go back to work.
Of course the bombing campaign was purposed to pressure the Japanese government to surrender, but that it was, as you claim, so that the US didn't have to carve up Japan with the Soviets is a claim that lacks support, and I couldn't find that claim in your sources neither.
I love how Americans opened the "nuking of a civilian target" debate with "sometimes is justified" as their first card.
The bombings has to be seen in the context of the unimaginable horrors orchestrated by the Japanese state that had to be stopped, at almost any cost.
Almost... Another way to see it is they burdened future generations as an expedient measure to save the lives of the people now in the past. Another another way to look at the bomb is preventing another world war.
An interesting historical point is Japan had largely been defeated by the time the bombs were dropped. And they had the option to bomb an uninhabited (or very lightly) part of Japan's territory as a show of force. But, instead they specifically chose to irradiate civilians.
They burdened future generations?
Because future generations have to safehold and not misuse extremely destructive knowledge. We have a world where North Korea has nuclear weapons, but do they have the ethics to use them responsibly, understanding their full potential? Do the other countries with nuclear bombs have that ethical responsibility, especially over generations? Cuz that big red button is going to be around for a while.
If it weren't the USA, it would have been the Nazis or Russians who invented it.
One would argue given enough time some kind of civilizations ending event is an inevitability. With nukes we're just increasing that risk.
I always like to think of it more as a race between evolution and extinction.
Yes, I would say the threat of dying in nuclear hell fire (if you were lucky) a bit of a burden.
lol
This is of course just my opinion, but no horrors, imaginable or otherwise, that the Japanese could've possibly orchestrated at the time, with the means they had available, would've come close to the devastation caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Look up the Rape of Nanking. Studying that alone made me believe the bombs were warranted. That's not even including Unit 731, and the fact that the Japanese government still will not acknowledge their attrocities.
The bombs were a sad necessity to stop the monstrosities.
What does that atrocity have to do with the civilians who were nuked?
Would you have preferred napalm, like Tokyo?
Or a ground invasion? Like Berlin?
It has to do with them in that their government would only listen to the sound of their screams. That was the only way to stop them.
Except the government didn't give a shit about the peasants or they would have surrendered earlier when so many were dying from previous bombings and the war was already obviously hopelessly lost. Let's pretend what you say is correct, do you think Americans should get nuked because of the US carrying out the Iraq invasion and occupation along with the many other war crimes that the US carries out on a regular basis? We'll find out just how much the government cares about these screams.
Maybe not nuked because the invasion of Iraq was a far cry from Unit 731 alone, but America certainly fucked around and found out with 9/11. The government very much cry over the screams of those affected by 9/11 as well.
Thanks for actually pointing out a specific atrocity committed by the Japanese, which did result in higher casualties than the bomb, though it happened over months rather than minutes, but ok, I'll accept it.
Still, the point is, what atrocities were the Japanese capable of perpetrating at the time the bombs were dropped, that were prevented by it, and couldn't have been prevented in a different way. There's a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would've been enough.
They believe their Emperor was a God. The invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in the Japanese fighting to the last man, woman, and child. Millions of civilian casualties. You suggest a test of the bomb would have forced Japanese surrender. But history tells the exact opposite story. There was a 3 day gap between the first and second bomb. Japanese high command thought the allies only had one bomb, refused to surrender. They only surrendered after the second bomb, when they realized this was repeatable.
let's not say nukes are good. did the nukes undo those atrocities?
No, but they stopped more from occuring.
I will say nukes are bad, though.
>they stopped more from occuring
this can't be proven
"The trolley might have stopped on its own"
it wasn't a trolley though, was it? it was individuals making decisions.
Japan surrendered due to the Bomb drops. This prevented the invasion of Japan that would have resulted in the total eradication of life on those islands due to the US's experience on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese Isles would be glass statues without that surrender as the US would not risk troops and fire bombing would have done the job without the Nuke.
>Japan surrendered due to the Bomb drops.
we will never know whether they would have surrendered without them on the same time table.
The US would not have stopped without total surrender. That would not have come without massive loss of life. Whether or not more died to the bomb is a moot question. The better question is how many would have survived without it and would it have been classified as a genocide afterward.
There was no distinction between civilian and soldier on the eastern front after Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the civilians fought as combatants.
The Japanese still exist due to the bomb and the Emperor.
>The US would not have stopped without total surrender. That would not have come without massive loss of life.
neither of these statements can be proven.
>The Japanese still exist due to the bomb and the Emperor.
nuking two cities is genocide, and it isn't a favor to the survivors.
It’s fine to believe that — I’ve been wrong before, too.
Of course, thats your prerogative, but then, quite frankly, you don't know enough about Japanese war crimes.
Fight war crimes with war crimes
Debatable. But as always with this topic; what else would force the Japanese surrender?
Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace? Maybe the complete distruction of their Navy and Air forces? Maybe the blockaid we had on the island? Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace?
Oh boy, fun! By all means, provide a source that states that Japan would have surrendered irrespective of the atomic bombings. This could be amusing...
Here's a whole video essay on the topic
https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ
Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down.
Lmao, in your source, the narrator correctly claims that Emepeor Hirohito had to intervene and force the military to stand down following the atomic bombings. Literally, the first three minutes of the video.... gtfo
My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay.
All that was needed...
My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong
Yes that literally happened.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
Are you arguing that the strategic bombings were justified to end the war, but the atomic bombings were not? That's a unique opinion, to be sure.
Now you're just being argumentative throwing out accusations cause you got sourced. You don't want to defend your position anymore so your attempting to shift the argument entirely.
Defend your stance or shut it.
What? You provided a source that states just that?...
Still trying to shift the goal posts. I will not be responding to your 5 second skim of a source you didn't read because you think you gotta win an argument above all else. You asked for a source that showed the bombings were unnecessary. You got it. Defend the point or shut it. If you want to argue the finer details of the American strategic bombing campaign and it's effectiveness then get a history degree. Because that is NOT the argument being made here. Neither by me or by you. Attempting to bring that up is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Your source states, based on your quote, that the atomic bombings would be unnecessary if the strategic bombing continued... and that's your argument for why the atomic bombings were unjustified?
I'm sorry, what war crimes did the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima commit?
None, but the state that governed them did, and the people are part of the state. What's you point?
My point is that targeting civilians is never okay. And if we are going to open the box to "well the state committed war crimes so civilians had to be targeted" I'd like to know your opinions on both 9/11 and October 7th, cause I bet there's gonna be some inconsistency to your belief.
But that whole argument concedes the point that the nukes stopped Japan. They did not. Japan was already sueing for peace. They were willing to negotiate and we know that what they were and were not willing to give up lines up with what we did end up agreeing to post war anyways. The nukes were pointless on top of being abhorrent.
You are incredibly naive. Total war between industrialized nations, as happened in WW2, is won or lost on industrial capacity. States literally need to cripple their enemy's ability and will to wage war, which means destroying industrial production, food production, access to safe water, and civil infrastructure. And that is why there should never be another great power war.
As for the USA's use of nuclear weapons in Japan, they weren't used to "win" the war. As you say, the Japanese were effectively beaten. Nukes were used to force an immediate surrender, saving millions of both American and Japanese lives.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
Sure, but that wasn't known at the time so it wasn't a relevant factor in the decision to drop the bombs.
But it was though. We had intercepted the communications between the Japanese foreign affairs head and the ambassador to the Soviet Union. The ambassador was attempting to get the Soviets to mediate a peace with the allies as they were not yet at war. We had their entire negotiation strategy. We had their intent and knew their wants, must haves and no go's. All of which lines up with the peace we ultimately would have.
We 100% knew. All we had to do was sit down and negotiate.
The Japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally, and that was the internationally agreed endpoint of the war with Germany and Japan. Unconditional surrender and occupation was considered necessary to completely break the German and Japanese spirit and ensure no third world war. The Allies didn't want a repeat of the inter-war period between WW1 and WW2 where Germany was not occupied and could tell itself that it hadn't really lost WW1. The Allies agreed that the way to avoid this problem was to comprehensively defeat and then force unconditional surrender on the Axis powers, followed by occupation, re-education, and rebuilding. When you look at Japan and Germany's success after WW2, it's hard to argue that the Allies were wrong to take that stance. The atomic bombs are a side issue. The invasion of Japan would have been so much worse.
You're leaving out the part where the peace talks were already a non starter. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japanese-diplomacy-1945#:~:text=Japan's%20ambassador%20to%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20in%201945%2C%20Naotake%20Sato,That%20effort%20ran%20through%20Sato.
After what japan had done, there should have been more bombs dropped.
And I know your argument is disingenuous because the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people.
You better have a good source if you're going to make such a bold statement.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
I disagree. The proliferation of Fascist ideology, in Asia alone, would've far eclipsed the devastation of two nuclear payloads.
You're assuming that dropping those bombs was the only way to stop the Japanese.
Three things:
-This is moving the goal post of the argument that I was replying to and irrelevant to this conversation.
-Theorizing about the consequences at stake in the war doesn't assume anything retrospectively. The decision to deploy nukes was not made with the knowledge we possess after the fact.
-It's very likely that any other option that would finally result in the complete cessation of an enemy as ideologically tenacious as Imperial Japan would've far exceeded a price that was able to be paid that late into the second world war.
You made an implicit assumption, and that assumption is very possibly wrong. You are "theorizing about the consequences" just as much as me by making that assumption.
For example, I can think of at least one way the US could've tried to avoid the huge civilian death toll: drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they're next. I don't claim to say it would've worked for sure, but at least they would've tried.
He's not theorizing, he's summarizing decades of historians' research. We know, for example, with the benefit of hindsight, that your idea would not have worked- it would have lead only to countless deaths via nuke, and then a long, slow slog through the meat grinder for troops and civilians.
How do we know this? Because we have Japanese communications from the time- and they basically sum up to something along the lines of "They don't have the balls to use the bomb against people again." with a side dash of "they don't have more bombs to throw at people."
Exploding the first one over water, the second one over a city on people, and then NOT dropping a third one because we didn't have anymore would have proved them right, and without a surrender it would have lead to millions of dead Americans and Japanese. They made so many purple hearts preparing for that invasion in 1945 that we still haven't gone through the backlog, 80 years later.
Now think about it without the benefit of hindsight. You know that culturally, they refuse to surrender. You know they see massive losses as completely acceptable, civilian, military, and suicide bombers. You know they want to try and grind the US down, make them give up because of the sheer number of troops dead. You know they're trying desperately to negotiate a favorable surrender where they can save face, maintain their 'experiments', and maintain their military, which is exactly the sort of thing that lead to WW2 in the first place. Finally you know you only have two bombs. Use them wrong, and the deaths, crippling, and wounding of millions of your own country's soldiers is directly on your head. Use them right, and you might get some surrenders.
Frankly speaking, dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost didn't end the war. The second bomb was what finally changed the mind of the emperor, because he bought the bluff that if we had two we would throw at people, we had more. Even then, there was instantly a coup to try and halt the surrender process- and they thought this guy was literally an incarnation/speaker/appointed of god. That's how much the military hated the idea of surrendering.
And finally, do keep in mind- every time the US bombed a Japanese city, they dropped leaflets warning the civilians to get out. By all accounts, they were actually highly effective.
To make it clear, dropping the bombs was a horrible thing. That it killed so many civilians who wouldn't- or more likely couldn't - get out in time, even if warned, is horrific. Leaflets are good and all, but that doesn't meanyou have anywhere to go, or the infrastructure, and beyond that, the Emporer was executing anyone who tried to leave bombing areas. (Seriously, possession of a leaflet was grounds for immediate execution.) But the alternatives to dropping the bombs were judged, at the time, to be worse. And I believe that their decision to do so were understandable with the knowledge they had, the options they had, and the consequences to their own troops if they didn't.
Very well written comment that will no doubt be under appreciated lol
I appreciate well written comments. ysjet's response was detailed and well explained, and didn't just say "of course nothing else would've stopped them", but actually went in depth to explain why (which, of course, I don't fully agree with, but I'm here to discuss and hear other people's opinion).
Thank you for the very well written write up. It reflects my exact thoughts on the dropping of the bombs, but laid out in a much more coherent manner.
Dropping the bombs was by all means a horror unleashed to stop an even greater horror from occuring. A trolley problem incarnate almost. Personally I think trying to moralize the bombs at all is reductive and ignores many of the facts of the situation and creates an idealized version of how wars are/where conducted that simply is not real.
Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, I don't claim to say for sure that my idea would've worked, though you seem convinced it definitely wouldn't have, in hindsight. Yet, there are many other reports that point in the opposite direction, namely, that the Japanese were already beaten and likely to surrender anyways. I agree the culture was always to never surrender, so I doubt it, but the idea of being instantly destroyed after seeing the a-bomb in action could've changed somebody's mind.
And if that didn't work, maybe there was a way to avoid targeting civilians, while still hitting military targets, but it seems to me the intention was to hit civilians in large number, and that's what I don't like (and no, leaflets aren't really enough).
Also, I didn't know the US only had two bombs, so I did a bit of research, and actually, it seems a third one was gonna be ready pretty soon after. But then again, I'm glad a third one wasn't used...
You're welcome for the details.
So I see 'they were ready to surrender' a lot in this thread, and while that's not... false, it's not exactly what it sounds like. They were ready to come to the table, yes, absolutely, but the problem was that they wanted to dictate their surrender - they wanted to keep their military, they wanted their industry rebuilt, they wanted the current government to stay in power- it was less of a surrender or more of a cessation of hostilities. Japan was 'ready to surrender' in much the same way Russia was 'ready to come to the peace table' about a year ago.
This was geopolitically not realistic, for a number of reasons- for one, allowing that kind of conditional surrender with Germany is directly what lead to WW2 in the first place, and nobody had any intentions of repeating that mistake. There was concern, given the view on surrendering, that it wouldn't actually be peace, or a surrender, merely a delaying tactic to build up forces and entrench. For another, Russia was bearing down on Japan, and the Allies wanted to limit Russia's geopolitical influence by preventing another East/West Germany. While the extra troops would have undoubtedly help save American lives, it would have ended in significant Russian and Japanese deaths, as well significant geopolitical issues long-term (East/West Germany worked so well, after all :P )
Long story short, the Allies absolutely wanted an unconditional surrender, exactly the kind of thing the Emperor and the military refused to contemplate, even after a single bomb was dropped. The military still refused to consider it even after the second, so seeing the a-bomb in action once would likely, I feel, not have done much.
RE: hitting civilians in large numbers, my understanding is less that they were deliberately targeting civilians, and more that they were looking for military targets that were geographically located in a position that would enhance the bomb's effects without considering civilians too much. You could argue in a very real way that they were deployed as terror weapons, or perhaps 'shock and awe' weapons if you want to be slightly less confrontational. Civilian casualties were, much like the entire rest of WW2, not much of a consideration- WW2 was considered a total war, and the Geneva Convention would not be signed for another 4 years, directly as a result of the atrocities of WW2. At the time, civilians were not considered something to inherently avoid unless you had some sort of political reason to do so (hence the leaflets). The most obvious example of this is the firebombings of Tokyo, which killed far, far more civilians in arguably far more painful ways, but there's plenty of example in the European front from all sides as well. Again, they were making decisions with the knowledge and viewpoints of the time. Doesn't excuse it, but trying to moralize decisions made in the past with current morals is always kind of a waste of time, in my opinion.
Regarding the third shot, there was, at the time, no bombs available when the uranium Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima was dropped, but they had prepped for another. They immediately turned towards trying to prepare another (Nagasaki's plutonium-based Fat Man), and managed to rush it to completion in just a week, but keep in mind that these were highly dangerous, experimental one-off prototypes being produced- it's why all of the planned subsequent bombs were of the fat man design, which was significantly safer, and America was completely out of uranium at that. It was only able to be rushed to completion so much because General Groves always planned to use two, and a lot of the logistics were already worked out and prepped beforehand. Before more plutonium bombs could be made, Woodrow Wilson called off the production. So yes, America was technically out of bombs, and completely out of uranium.
Arguably, America could have created more plutonium bombs, but was limited by the availability of plutonium (which is lengthy to turn into weapons grade), the speed at which they could be safely produced (and Fat Man was, frankly, very unsafely produced, it should have taken nearly 3 weeks to create), and America only had a small amount of weapons-grade plutonium stockpiled. So technically, both positions are correct- America only had two bombs, and they certainly could have made more, but they were limited by time and materials, and lack of willingness. They had, perhaps, one or two more fat mans they would be able to drop, with perhaps 3+ week production times for each (because no logistics were prepared for it), before it would have dropped to something like iirc 6 months per bomb due to lack of prepared plutonium.
So yes, one could argue there could have been more bombs after the first two, but it was generally considered by the American military and also the President that two was the 'magic number,' so there wasn't any setup for them, so they would not have been cranked out anywhere near as fast. Nobody believed that one bomb would trigger a surrender (because of, again, the cultural viewpoints on surrendering) as well the implicit belief that it would be a one-off prototype that could not be repeated.
If two did not, and it was widely considered it would, nobody believed 3 would be any more likely to trigger a surrender than two did, and might even convince them to fight harder. In addition, due to the effects of radiation, America would have limited to how they could use the bombs one the land invasion started- with Russia from the north, America from the south-east, and most of central Japan firebombed, there's not a lot of good targets without hitting allies.
I don't even know how to continue this conversation. I didn't have to assume anything about Imperial Japan's reception to alternative methods of prompted surrender to arrive at the conclusion that the theoretical devastation of Fascism proliferating is at all comparable to the nuclear bombs that were deployed.
So, are you a stoned emo man, or a stone demoman, or what?
You've solved my secret username puzzle.
Also, yes.
You're right, this conversation is pointless. You keep making unproven assumptions, even in your last reply, and don't even know you're doing it. Maybe search "assumption" in the dictionary? Anyways, good luck.
? Choose your battles more carefully.
The Trinity tests would have most likely been observed by Japanese spies/network, so the Japanese leadership already knew of the destructive nature of the bomb. And yet they didn't surrender when ordered, until the bomb was finally used on their citizenry.
The trinity tests weren't even close to Japan's shore... yes, spies would've seen it, or heard about it, but regular army people, generals, etc. and the emperor would only know a second or third hand story.
Compare that to walking down the street and seeing a giant mushroom cloud at a safe but not so far distance, potentially with a large part of Japan's navy gone in a blink (and maybe a bit of a tsunami as well). Let's say this was timed such that the emperor himself would likely observe it. We can't know for sure, and I concede that Japanese culture was very much "victory or death" at that time, but seeing it in person might, just might've changed some people's mind, with a much smaller civilian death toll.
Doesn't matter what the population thinks ultimately, it only matters what the leadership thinks, and the leadership would have gotten a full report on the destructive nature, and the ramifications of, from the Trinity test.
So blowing up another one off on the Tokyo Harbor wouldn't have added anything to what the leadership already knew about their chances of winning the war.
Trust me, if the leadership saw this first hand it would make a much bigger impression.
Anyways, I think the conversation derailed a bit, I cannot claim this would've worked for sure, I don't have a time machine. My point is, this was done with the intention to cause mass civilian casualties, which today one could argue it being a war crime (and that's why I don't approve of it), but of course, the Geneva convention didn't exist yet at the time.
Maybe there was a different way to get the Japanese to surrender, with fewer casualties, but it doesn't look like the US really tried.
It is also interesting that the movie focuses on the scientists developing the bomb over everything else. There is a removal of the protagonists from seeing the destruction of their work, but that was done on purpose by the military. Even within that, you see a discussion of morality of the bomb by its developers and that the scientists, in almost all cases, have a more nuanced understanding of the destructive power they are developing and the ethics of using such a device.
I think that's always the way. Compartmentalisation. Though I don't blame the film for not showing the horrors taking place in those cities. At the time Oppenheimer wouldn't have access to those images, and so I guess neither do we. On the other hand - unless I miss remember - we do get to see him watching a film reel. So, maybe they could have shoehorned the scenes of destruction. But, personally, I think it's enough to see the effect it has on Oppenheimer. Any more could be classed as prurient voyeurism.
I don't know of you or @HobbitFoot@lemmy.world is aware but the screenplay of the movie was written in first person. That's how focused Nolan was from the very beginning. No way he was going to show actual bombings.
Also, funny that you mentioned compartmentalization. This article opens with same observation, and in turn refers to Matt Damon's character in the movie.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-08-11/oppenheimer-atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-christopher-nolan
I don't think they could show the bombings as Oppenheimer wasn't there. However, it is plausible that he saw some newsreel footage of the aftermath. They could show that.
Is there a Japanese film like Oppenheimer but from their perspective? I've seen plenty of stuff that feels influenced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including the horrors from a perspective unique to people who have first hand experience; but it's all fictional.
Like, is there maybe a movie about the dude who survived both bombs?
I don't have a full grasp of it but Barefoot Gen (1983) is on my watch list and deals with the topic of atomic bombs
E: Ah... you wanted a documentary. This isn't it.
Also that the alternative was burning cities with the people still in them, and they'd seen that, which was have been more horrifying and slow than a nuclear conflagration.
The main way the atomic bombs worked was by setting everything on fire. The radiation was secondary, and much less significant.
Don't forget the blast itself; The bomb dropped on Hiroshima first knocked much of the city over, and the fires started and spread later.
Not trying to downplay what Japan did, but I don't think that's why they dropped the bombs. Russia was closing in and the US didn't seem keen on having to divide up Japan like they did in Europe. I'd say it's more likely civilian targets were bombed to put social pressure on the emperor and government to accept defeat.
These bombs don't discriminate, so even put into context like you say, it's still not a good argument
So much conjecture, but if you have any good sources, feel free to share.
For Truman, news of the successful Trinity test set up a momentous choice: whether or not to deploy the world’s first weapon of mass destruction. But it also came as a relief, as it meant the United States wouldn’t have to rely on the increasingly adversarial Soviet Union to enter World War II against Japan.
From https://www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-bombing-wwii-cold-war
By the morning of August 9, 1945, Soviet troops had invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, but there was still no word from the Japanese government regarding surrender.
From https://www.britannica.com/event/atomic-bombings-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki/The-bombing-of-Nagasaki
Moreover, regular incendiary bombing raids were destroying huge portions of one city after another, food and fuel were in short supply, and millions of civilians were homeless. General Curtis LeMay, the commander of American air forces in the Pacific, estimated that by the end of September he would have destroyed every target in Japan worth hitting. The argument that Japan would have collapsed by early fall is speculative but powerful.
From https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trumans-decision-to-use-the-bomb-712569
I don't know what Truman thought, but I do think saving US soldiers and avoiding The Soviet Union must have weighed in on the decision to nuke cities.
I know history.com isn't that great of a source, but I have to go back to work.
Of course the bombing campaign was purposed to pressure the Japanese government to surrender, but that it was, as you claim, so that the US didn't have to carve up Japan with the Soviets is a claim that lacks support, and I couldn't find that claim in your sources neither.
I love how Americans opened the "nuking of a civilian target" debate with "sometimes is justified" as their first card.
Which Americans do that you mean?