Do you think the United States should have dropped the bomb on Japan during World War II? Why or Why not?

Answer 1

they did now Iran and N Korea
save American lives

Answer 2

It is a virtue after all to ask questions...which is why I admire you asking this even if this is the umpteenth time I have seen this question (but this is the first time Im going to answer it).
As many people may have stated the bombs actually saved countless American and even Japanese lives...because the other alternative barring complete surrender (despite some possibility of Japanese moderates doing so...it was not set in stone as the Hardliners still held sufficent sway to at least stall the debate on surrender, otherwise they would have done so way before the deadline that the USA gave them to surrender. Also consider that the Japanese are a proud people, and they did not want to surrender at least in the manner that the Allies wanted, and the Allies had the position of strength...so Japan at this point had no business trying to get the Emperor spared from the ignomity of surrender and losing his throne) was a massive invasion of Japan, codenamed Operation Olympic. I wont get into the details of the operation...but suffice to say it would even make D-Day look like a small peacetime exercise by comparison. The estimated USA/Allied losses were to be close to 1 million (which is quite likely when you consider the fact that the Japs in the Home Islands were the hard-core of the Army and not like the troops who were at Iwo Jima etc. Eisenhower probably assumed that the Japs would be not as effective then so "Olympic" in his view may have been more cost-effective.) while the Japanese military and civilian losses were estimated to be something like 14 million or worse (civilians because the US battlefleet and carrier planes would turn all the Jap cities or whats left of them into parking lots during Operation Olympic and that the Japanese defensive plan envisioned all women, children and old non-uniformed men to charge at the Sherman and Pershing tanks with bamboo spears and plastique charges). While some believe that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria made the Bombs unnecessary...that still does not preclude the fact that the Soviets then did not have a good enough amphibious capability to threaten the Home Islands (and at this moment the Japs did not care about the fate of China or Korea). Even if the Soviets did have an amphibious capability, then it would have only resulted in a Soviet version of "Olympic" which would have been more vicious in its outcome (I do not recall the Japanese desiring to surrender to the Soviets any more than to the Americans). Also keep in mind that no such things as "smart bombs" existed then so execution of any military objective at the time meant either carpet bombing or the nukes. Perhaps the only really substansive argument against the nukes was that the civilians were the apparent target despite the info about military command posts being in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again consider that these civilians would have been part of the maniacal bamboo-spear wielding army anyways...so most likely their death was more or less guaranteed (as reprehensive as it sounds). Now of course no nation would seriously contemplate use of nukes against anything except possibly critical military targets like other nukes, but remember different times...different measures. Bottom line is the world lost 200000+ innocent Japanese lives with the nukes...but the likely alternatives (save for a change of heart in the Japanese hard-liners) would have produced millions of military and civilian deaths much to the eternal sorrow of the families and survivors.

Answer 3

Wikipedia has an excellent article with some pretty profound links. I recently read "Hiroshima," the Pulitzer Prize winning recounting of interviews and personal experinces of survivors, and looked further into the issue of whether or not the bomb should have been dropped after the book brought up the debate.

Wikipedia states that there were several military strategists who were vocally against the dropping of the bomb. It's a tough question because nobody can really say whether or not Japan would have ever given up in a war with strictly conventional weaponry. I believe Truman's major motivation was to squash the pride and tenacity of the Japanese. They were already losing big, even lost, some would say, but the general consensus is they never would have quit-- ever.

Ultimately, the bomb served it's purpose, but I also believe it to be the single worst thing ever to happen in Man's existence. It sparked the Cold War, a huge focus on existentialism, a loss in faith...

Answer 4

No. The war was about over, anyway. The Japanese were about to surrender to the U.S.--the saturation bombing of almost 60 of Japan's largest cities--and the ensuing hardship was wearing them down...
General D. Eisenhower told Secretary of War Stimson that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." In July 1945, Eisenhower met with Pres. Truman and advised him not to use the bomb. Heavily influenced by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and 'Skull-and-Boneser' McGeorge Bundy, Truman was convinced of the necessity of dropping the bomb--in order to avoid a costly American invasion of Japan--and many Americans believe the bomb was necessary, because it saved American lives. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy in their 1946 article defending the dropping of the bomb argued that it prevented up to one million American casualties that would result from an American invasion. But there is no military evidence that the casualties would be this high. In fact, the highest military casualty figures for an American invasion of Japan are 46,000. But this is really beside the point. There is no real evidence that American leaders were seriously preparing an invasion of Japan. Our military leaders and diplomats were telling President Truman that they were ready to surrender. So why do American Presidents and other Americans continue to use this argument that the bomb prevented a costly American invasion?
Please reference the following: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=0514

Answer 5

its fashionable now to say the bombs shouldn't have been used and many percive it as a mistake but when reviewing any military action you have to use only the information that was available at the time. to review what was known and thought lets look at some items
japan was trying to get the USSR to help it end the war but they were still trying to end up with more tan they had before it. they never offered any settlement that was acceptable to the allies.
japan was known to have thousands more suicide planes and pilots stashed away and the whole population was being mobilized as fighters. she still had a large army and enought weapons to make any invasion very costly.
japan had sworn to never accept any surrender that was unconditional but would fight to the last man.
US losses were projected to be as high as 1 million men for each of the major islands whith japanese losses perhaps 10 times that.
there was a very real hatred of the japanese. there was very little willingness to let them off easy but instead they were to be punished and removed as a future danger. in truth they had earned such hatred by their actions. they did not obey the commonly accepted rules of war and had a history of tings like the rape on nanking and ill treatment of POWs and comfort women.
by any estimate the use of the bombs saved many more lives than they cost. a bombs killed less than 200000 people even by the worst estimates which is far below even the lowest one for any invasion. perhaps by as much as a fatcor of 10. they shortened the war by years and prevented unknown suffering. there is also the issue of what would japans troops still in the field in china have done there. did the bomb forestall an orgy of rape and years of trouble that might have arisen as the local generals fought on or tried to establish themselves as warlords following the fall of the home islands. such actions are very possible and have occured before.
in short perhaps the use of atomics might be considered immoral but the evidence does not support such a view

Answer 6

This question comes up on here at least three times a week.

Yes they were right to do so, because;

It stopped the war which had cost millions of lives and Japanese cruelty across asia which was so bad it made the Nazis look tame.

It would have cost at least 2 million lives on both sides to mount an invasion of Japan.

Conventional bombing raids actually killed many more people than the Atom bombs, they just did it without risking waves and waves of bombers.

Answer 7

No. Because it was unnecessary. Japan was sending feelers to Truman through the Soviets that they wanted to surrender. Japan was laid waste by Curtis LeMays firebombing. Every city was destroyed and consumed by the fire wreaked from B-29s flying at low altitude and dropping incindiary bombs to burn the wooden and bamboo cities. The Japanese only wanted to keep their emperor. Truman wouldn't have any of it. So he dropped the bombs. Ironically, the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor. Eisenhower said it was a mistake to use the bombs.

Answer 8

The only reason the americans dropped a nuclear bomb on japan was because they knew they would lose a lot of men if they invaded japan so its a good job you yanks did it

Answer 9

only way to save lives. had to kill some to save more. there was no way japan would surrender because of the way the militarisic government was like during those war torn years

an invasion of japan would have been a catastrophic loss of human lives so america was thus forced to use the a bomb to force the japs to capitulate

i think overall it was for the grater good. we cant place values on individual human lives but if could save more as compred to less, i'm sure most would choose to save more lives

for a better understnading of the japs and their way of thinking those years, read James Bradley's Flyboys

Answer 10

YES! You have to understand that Japan never would have surrendered otherwise. They would have fought to the last man, woman and child, which would have made the war last longer, and instead of six million soldiers and civilians dying as a result (that's not including those who died as a result of the Holocaust), perhaps it would have been 10-15 million instead.
Of course it was awful, but by killing a few hundred thousand, maybe even a couple million, it is entirely feasible to believe they saved tens of millions of lives. Weigh one against ten, which would be more worthwhile to save?

Answer 11

alongside with the on a daily basis Hitler questions, we additionally get the on a daily basis Atomic Bomb (Hiroshima & Nagasaki) questions. i come across it exciting that maximum of human beings are continuously targeting one individual and one journey, whilst the final public of the human beings and activities of worldwide conflict II pass unstated. i might say from those 2 subjects on my own we are actually not any closer to information the activities or the human beings in contact in international conflict II. i might desire to admit your question is unique, by way of fact the others purely ask if dropping the atomic bombs on Japan grew to become into the excellent difficulty to do. possibly you are going to be able to desire to supply the human beings you're asking here extra suggestion (who, whilst, the place) concerning the article you study. i do no longer know the fact, I purely know there are quite a few the thank you to be certain what the fact is.