English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What are your thoughts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Could the war have ended without using the A bomb?

2006-06-28 03:23:33 · 18 answers · asked by kokoandirock 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

18 answers

no it was not necessary. yes, the war could have ended with out the A bomb. The reason for the A bomb was to make other nations aware of the power the U.S. had.

2006-06-28 03:28:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

At the time, the Japanese stated that it take the US a million men and a hundred hears to invade the homeland. To end the war, the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The second one was dropped because the first didn't stop the Japanese.
The was was a do or die situation. So remember that all is fair in love and war.

2006-06-28 03:30:25 · answer #2 · answered by Wally B 1 · 0 0

Yes it could have ended without the atomic bombs, but millions of allied forces would have died invading Japan and many more civilian casualties would have happened. Japan would never surrender even if it was the world against them. 2 main reasons: Kamikazes, this shows the will to never quit, and in the islands south of Japan, Japanese soldiers, when cornered would kill the own children and families so that they would not be captured. As long as Japan could kill an allied force, they were going to fight. The A bomb was definitely necessary

2006-06-28 03:31:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well, it was either invade an island nation and lose hundreds of american soldiers, japanese soldiers, japanese civilians, or drop the bomb

war is about killing enough people on the other side so that their will to fight is gone

japan was very well warned of what was about to happen, even after the first bomb went off, they did not give in

my grandfather fought in the pacific, so if he had had to invade the japanese big island, i suspect there is a high degree of chance that he would have been killed or injured, had this happened, i might not be here today, so i'd say yes

2006-06-28 03:29:28 · answer #4 · answered by whoisgod71 3 · 0 0

Dropping the atomic bombs was not necessary because the Japanese were getting ready to surrender anyway, the government just needed to convince the country that they had lost. The U.S. government knew this, but dropped the bombs anyway so that everyone could see how powerful the U.S. was.

2006-06-28 03:46:14 · answer #5 · answered by Jo Jo 1 · 0 0

Yes. At that time the Japanese people were ready to fight to the last and many more people on both sides would have died. It was a sad thing to do, but it brought the war in the Pacific to an end.

2006-06-28 03:29:27 · answer #6 · answered by 7782264 3 · 0 0

motives FOR - jap had confirmed close to-fanatical resistance, battling to easily about the perfect guy on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. fireplace bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo without discernible political result. in uncomplicated phrases the atomic bomb might want to jolt Japan's administration to provide up -With in uncomplicated phrases 2 bombs waiting, it become too risky to "waste" one in a an illustration over an unpopulated section - an invasion of Japan would have brought about casualties on both section that would want to surely have handed the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - on the spot use of the bomb confident the international of its horror and prevented destiny use at the same time as nuclear stockpiles were far higher motives adverse to - The bomb become used partly to justify the $2 million spent on its progression - both cities were of constrained protection rigidity cost. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima 5 or 6 to at least a million - jap lives were sacrificed only for means politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union - Japan become waiting to call it quits besides - Convertional firebombing would have brought about as a lot significant damage without making the U.S. the first u . s . to apply nuclear guns. only a tip, do not replica this note for note or you'd be plagiarizing

2016-11-15 08:58:44 · answer #7 · answered by sorensen 4 · 0 0

The Japanese were not going to surrender otherwise. It would have taken a land invasion of Japan, which would have taken years and cost lives in the millions.

As goofy as it sounds, dropping the atomic bombs probably saved lives, both Allied and Japanese.

2006-06-28 03:28:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yes, but at the cost of thousands of u.s and japaneese military lives. I bealive that the u.s made the right desicion. If they had went for a land based assualt it would have dragged the war on for propbably another 6 months. while the bombs did the same task but with U.S lives saved.

2006-06-28 03:31:22 · answer #9 · answered by chucky w 2 · 0 0

No. D bomb ar necessary, otherwise D aggression would hav continued.

2006-06-28 03:28:18 · answer #10 · answered by omra237 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers