[krschultz]

Many historians argue that dropping the bombs was unnecessary. With the USSR transitioning its army to the east and preparing to invade Japan, it was clear Japan was going to lose with or without nuclear weapons. There is evidence that the US sped up deployment of nuclear weapons so that their effectiveness could be demonstrated to the world before the war ended. This argument is usually used to point out that the bombs were used unnecessarily.

Obviously the bombs killed fewer people than a full scale invasion of Japan (and from the perspective of the US, the only casulities were Japanese, not American and Japanese). But many historians would argue that a full scale invasion of mainland Japan was never going to happen after the USSR decided to engage Japan as well. The writing was on the wall.

That said, I think you have a good point using the counterfactual of what would have happend if anyone else got to the nuclear weapon first. Germany would have absolutely nuked anyone and everyone if they could. Japan might have as well (not sure what they would have used it against, maybe the Panama canal? I don't see how they could have launched one against mainland USA without an ICBM). The UK and USSR probably would have if they could.

Basically anyone that showed the stomach to firebomb entire cities would also have used the nuclear weapons of the day if they could.

It also took a couple of years before the full appreciation of the dangers of nuclear fallout became apparent. Not to mention, the nuclear weapons used in WW2 have a tiny yield in comparison to modern nuclear weapons.

[petegrif]

This post makes an extremely important and very very very poorly understood point. You are absolutely correct that whilst the conventional wisdom is that the US nuked Japan to avoid the loss of 500,000 lives invading the mainland the historical record is rather different. Recent scholarship has made this plain. For those interested I recommend starting with Gar Alperovitz's 'The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.'

On a point of detail, ironically it isn't true that 'the only casualties were Japanese." In Nagasaki there were a large number of conscripted foreign workers as well as the native Japanese population (mostly women and children).

Another good point about the firebombing. The US and UK airforce leaders were clear that if they lost the war the 1000 bomber raids onto civilian targets would likely be classified as war crimes and that they personally would be tried as war criminals.

[adventureful]

You're definitely right that it was a war of decimation and sheer destruction (eg the fire bombing). It was a fight to the death. It's what makes a war like that so damn scary, the gloves literally come off. WW1 of course had plenty of that as well (chemical weapons). The civilian population required to support the industry necessary to build the war machines are part of the targeting if your intention is to survive that sort of conflict and stop the opponent's ability to produce more tanks, planes and weapons.

[mturmon]

One other thing comes to mind -- the conflict in the Pacific had a more distinctly nasty racial and imperial cast than the conflict in Western Europe. The fighting was more savage, and the enemy more demonized (on both sides). This made it easier to carry out the destruction of a whole city.

[adventureful]

I suppose Japan could have used strategic nuclear attacks, against the island gains the US forces were making in the Pacific, and potentially nuking our fleet groups.

They probably could have nuked Hawaii as well with some effort, and pushed the US forces even further back to shore and reduced our visibility / force projection.