August 9, 1945, a Date that Will Live in Infamy
By Robert Higgs • Saturday August 9, 2008 9:58 AM PDT • 23 Comments
I note with sadness that today is the sixty-third anniversary of the U.S. explosion of an atomic bomb over Nagasaki, Japan. The explosion killed an estimated 40,000 to 75,000 persons immediately, and perhaps as many as 80,000 died by the end of 1945 from the effects of their wounds and radiation sickness. Nearly all of the victims were civilians.
President Truman ordered this attack even though Japan was already effectively defeated. It possessed no capability to harm Americans in their home territory, and its surrender was only a matter of time, especially in light of the Soviet Union’s declaration of war against Japan on August 9, four days after its unilateral abrogation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, and its initiation of military actions against Japanese forces in Manchuria. Japan, not yet a rich country, was militarily and economically exhausted from the wars in which it had been engaged since 1937. The Japanese government sought only reasonable terms, including retention of the emperor as the nation’s supreme political authority.
Any “point” the United States government sought to make about its newly devised military power, whether to the Japanese or to the Soviets, had already been made all too well by its devastating explosion of an atomic bomb over Hiroshima three days earlier. The decision to drop the second bomb must be condemned by every decent person as a gratuitous criminal act. The U.S. armed forces had already killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians by fire-bombing the highly flammable houses and other structures in which the people lived and worked. To kill another huge number of people—men, women, and children, prisoners of war, foreigners, and other innocent persons in the city—was a war crime, plain and simple. That many Americans continue, even today, to defend this senseless and flagrantly brutal act is shameful.
Tags: Uncategorized 
Bob, thanks for this post. Nagasaki is often forgotten, seen as a side note to Hiroshima. But indeed, Nagasaki was all the more tragic given the devastation three days earlier. It was just murderous gravy for the empire, I believe (not that the other nuking, or strategic bombing Japanese civilians, was justifiable, of course).
Anthony Gregory | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
you say:
its surrender was only a matter of time
I’m not so sure how true that was. It could have taken another 2 years or so and possibly a much greater loss of life.
My history teachers may have been deceiving me but I was always under the impression that Japan was not going to surrender and a full blown main land invasion would hav ebeen far worse.
Again, I could be wrong.
John V | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
John V, your history teachers were probably as deceived as you. Remember that the victors write the history. Invasion of Japan was never necessary to prevent Japan from further military aggression. The estimates of how many troops would be killed in the event of an (unnecessary) invasion were always inflated as a way to justify Truman’s desire to show off his new toy to guarantee America’s status as world wide bully.
Joyce Brand | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
Joyce,
Perhaps. I simply don’t know. While I find the weapon atrocious and hope it’s never used again, if the circumstances were truly as I’d been taught, then I have a hard time being against the bomb at that point in time given the alternative. But, if, as you say, that alternative was overblown and exaggerated, I would change my position.
John V | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
For the definitive look at Harry Truman and his authorizing the atomic bombings, see Ralph Raico’s brilliant essay:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
Or at least read the excerpt regarding the atomic bombings:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
Indeed, the war was effectively over, and thus the attack was entirely unjustified and a criminal act on an epic scale, perhaps the worst in human history.
Let us never forget.
Minnesota Chris | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
A video that Rad Geek put together for his annual memorial of the atomic bombings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCXAS4CfHA
Context: http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/08/09/1102am/
Black Bloke | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
Robert, thanks for the article. We as Americans must be freed from the ultra-nationalistic, war-mongering mentality that continually justifies every form of brutality that our Government inflicts.
Jonathan Hodges | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
John V, regardless of the circumstances, by what standard can anyone justify the use of such tactics against civilian populations? TWICE?! is it not true that there is no standard? is it not true that the only justification required is to have the power to do so?
David | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
It’s a pity the Jap army didn’t share your high standards against attacking civilians. Ever seen babies bayonetted? You just toss one in the air and ...
SASOB | Aug 9, 2008 | Reply
John V. I would suggest you go find and read the book “The Last Great Victory” by Stanley Weintraub. In it he points out that “victory” was far from assured – and even after the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki – there were still elements within the Japanese military who did not want to surrender. The American people were sick of the war – an invasion was projected to cost millions of lives, and the Russians were coming in (and would have potentially made Japan into a North-South Korea type of situation). While the bomb was atrocious we killed more people in the fire bombing raids than the atomic bombs did.
calsdad | Aug 10, 2008 | Reply
SASOB, John V, and others, there can never be any justification — ever — for the use of such a destructive weapon against a civilian population — ever. Whether the enemy was brutal, at times, in their war killing and/or whether there were estimates of numbers of Americans that maybe might be killed, a country can never resort militarily to mass incineration of a civilian population, either out of revenge, or to “send a message.” It’s mass-murder, plain and simple. The Tokyo fire-bombing is equally, and similarly, gravely evil. One can never resort to evil (firebombing, use of nukes) for a perceived good. God forgive us.
Dan Giroux | Aug 10, 2008 | Reply
The Japanese had been ready to surrender. The island nation was blockaded and starving. Invasion might have been necessary to impose unconditional surrender, but why was that the goal? Japan was certainly no menace to America by 1945. The original estimates ranged from 20,000 to 40,000 dead in an invasion. These were inflated upwards after the war.
See Ralph Raico:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
Anthony Gregory | Aug 10, 2008 | Reply
Dan Giroux, I’m a principled guy but your philosophy takes principles one step beyond reality. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that “evil” ideologies can’t just be beaten back, they have to be stamped out. You can’t just push them back into their box and hope they won’t pop out again.
I believe there are strong arguments in favor of nuking and firebombing the Japanese and Germans, respectively, to definitively end not only hostilities but also the war and the culture that spawned it and its accompanying atrocities. I.e., even in hindsight these strategic actions were fully justified.
And, by the way, don’t be surprised if it takes a similar holocaust to finally cleanse the world of militant, suicidal Islamofascism.
Or do you believe that we can face off suicidally fascist militant societies with diplomacy and strict adherence to principles of non-aggression and proportionality?
Federalist | Aug 12, 2008 | Reply
Federalist,
“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”
(#2314 Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Dan Giroux | Aug 12, 2008 | Reply
I remember as a young boy, my father, who was Chief Engineer in the British Merchant Navy on board one of their merchant ships,saying after the 2nd world war – the world will have learned a huge lesson – at least we won’t have any more wars! With hindsight, how wrong he was.
David Tait | Aug 17, 2008 | Reply
On behalf of a friend, could anybody please answer the following two questions regarding the dropping of the bomb:
1. Was there an announcement on the news on August 8th, 1945, about the plans to drop the bomb the following day?
2. What time of the day GMT was the bombed dropped?
Thanks in advance
Regards
Eva Moffat
Eva Moffat | Sep 10, 2010 | Reply
“and its surrender was only a matter of time”
Yes, because Japanese soldiers surrendered when the situation became hopeless. Except, of course, for every actual island battle we had with them (83% of 120k on Okinawa killed, 95% of the 22k on Iwo Jima).
Higgs is demonstrating the truth of “In general, the principle is, the farther from the scene of horror, the easier the talk.”, which I found in http://crossroads.alexanderpiela.com/files/Fussell_Thank_God_AB.pdf
For a different take on the use of atomic weapons in Japan, see “Thank God For The Atomic Bomb” (referenced in the above link) as well as http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808
Calvin Dodge | Aug 9, 2011 | Reply
So, SASOB, because someone did something horribly wrong to you that gives you carte blanche to do things that are horribly wrong to them? When someone injures, maims or tortures someone, does the criminal justice system do the same to them?
Vince | Aug 9, 2011 | Reply
“Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the Americans had made one, they could not have many more.[78] American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda’s, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, to convince the Japanese that the U.S. had a large supply.[62][79]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan)
Reading the rest of the article it is not clear Japan was ready to surrender on acceptable terms on August 8th, and the Emperor’s secret deliberations certainly weren’t known to U.S. intelligence at the time.
Ervan Darnell | Aug 9, 2011 | Reply
This is a nice debate to have...sixty years later. Unfortunately, decisions have to be made on the basis of best available information. Dropping the second bomb convinced the Japanese that we had an unlimited stock of atom bombs (not true)with which to destroy one city after another. If it brought about a quicker end to the war I think it was justified.
William Guerriero | Aug 9, 2011 | Reply
Screw ‘em. You’re not gonna find a survivor of Nanking, the Philippines, Pearl Harbor, or any of the Japanese occupied areas who would share the myopic hippy views of many on this page. The isolationists would have enabled the holocaust and ensured more suffering, but for their small numbers.
Jim Oliver | Aug 9, 2011 | Reply