It's been 80 years since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the question of whether or not those bombings were justified has never been more contentious. That wasn't the case in the immediate aftermath: 85% of the American public approved the decision to bomb the cities in 1945, but this has dropped to 56% in more recent years, particularly among younger generations. Only 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds, versus 70% of those 65 and older—the World War II generation—thought it was justified, because there was no other way that Japan would surrender.
But starting in the 1960s, newer generations of historians put forward revisionist histories. They argued that Japan was going to surrender anyway, or they were trying to negotiate a surrender, but the United States ignored them. Alternatively, they would say that the purpose of the atomic bombings was to put the United States and its allies on a strong footing in the opening stages of the Cold War. It would scare Russia and show that it was overwhelmingly overmatched in an arms and technology fight.
Today's guest is one of the last nuclear-trained bomber pilots in the Navy, who received training and delved deeply into what exactly to do if he had to drop a nuclear payload on a city, and he spent a lot of time pondering these very questions. His name is Lou Casabianca, and he's the author of the book “Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Invasion of Japan: Case Closed.” He argues the decision to drop the bombs was the right one, and it's not a muddled issue. Incontrovertibly putting forth the case that, after all these decades since the bombings, the justification is largely the same as those made in 1945. We answer all the common objections to the dropping of the atomic bombs, what would have happened if they hadn't been used and the United States had to undertake an invasion of the Japanese mainland, and why these questions still matter today.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
