Re the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Jim Auer and I
did a piece for Parameters (USArmy War College professional
journal) just after the great debate of 1995 on whether the bombings
were justified. Our conclusion is in the opening paragraphs and any
reader who wishes to pursue the rest of it can find it at http://carlisle-
www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96spring/sp-essay.htm#Auer

Looking Back at the Bomb JAMES E. AUER and RICHARD
HALLORAN

The great debate over the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki that swept across America last summer was partly
emotional and even trivial but mainly genuine and profound. The
50th anniversary of the bombings generated at least nine books, a
packet of magazine articles, radio commentaries, television shows,
reminiscences by Americans who attacked and Japanese who were
victims. If it had not been for the O. J. Simpson trial, the atomic
issue might have dominated national attention.

The deliberations have subsided, but that does not mean the issues
have gone away or a consensus has been reached. The
fundamental question remains: Was the United States justified in
dropping two bombs that immediately killed 200,000 people, the
vast majority of them civilians? More simply, was President Truman
right or wrong?

After studying much of the literature, we have concluded that the
United States was justified and President Truman was right. We
also believe that, like most human endeavors, it could have been
handled better; the atomic bombing of Nagasaki so soon after
Hiroshima is rightly open to question. Lastly, we recognize that,
again as with most human endeavors, reasonable men and women
will differ.

Sifting through this mass of material, it seems evident that Japan
had been defeated by late July 1945, and that some Japanese
leaders realized this. But defeat and surrender are not the same,
and the issue was how to get Japan, notably the militarists who
ruled the nation, to quit. In this, President Truman appeared to have
six options:

a.. Invade Japan in two stages, prolonging the war for a year and
taking large numbers of American and Allied casualties.*
b.. Continue the aerial bombing and naval blockade until the
Japanese lost the will to resist and surrendered. c.. Get the
Russians into the war in the hope they would crack Japanese
resolve and make them sue for peace. d.. Accept Japan's
proposals to negotiate by modifying the demand for an
unconditional surrender to permit Japan to retain the Emperor, a
vital point to the Japanese, and agreeing to a minimal occupation of
Japan. e.. Warn that atomic bombs would be used unless Japan
surrendered, and possibly detonate one as a demonstration. f..
Drop the atomic bombs to shock the Japanese into quitting before
more devastation was loosed on their nation.

Each option was considered, some more thoroughly than others,
between 12 April when Mr. Truman became President and 24 July
when he approved an order to drop the bombs after 3 August 1945.
It was not a methodical process--government then was no more
neat and orderly than it is today--but the decision was taken after
three and a half years of a brutal, draining, desperate war.

* I heard, after the article had appeared, a vignette that underscored
the large number of casualties expected had the US invaded
Japan. The armed forces minted enough Purple Hearts to award a
medal to everyone killed or wounded in action. They made so many
that no new medals were needed all through the Korean War,
Vietnam, and skirmishes up to the Gulf War of 1991. The last of the
WWII Purple Hearts was awarded to a Marine wounded in Desert
Storm.