Should the two atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Answer 1

There was probably justification for dropping one atomic bomb. The Japanese media had successfully misinformed the Japanese people about just how badly they were losing the war and an island-by-island assault on the Japanese atolls would have killed many more people than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (especially it would have killed more Americans).

There were two different sorts of Atomic bomb.The US military could not make up their mind which sort to use. So they tried both.

Answer 2

On the morning of August 6, 1945 the United States Army Air Forces dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima, followed three days later by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb over Nagasaki, Japan.

Answer 3

Truman believed he was right to the day he died. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than when both were dropped, combined, and he was convinced at the time that the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child. The Japanese were told that Americans were cannibals, so they would drop their babies off cliffs rather than have them fall into our hands. Japanese schoolchildren were drilling with anything available which could be used as a weapon.

We may look on it now and see how terrible the outcome was, but they didn't know the effects of radiation when the bombs were dropped. And we have found out since that the Japanese were developing the same thing, so it's possible the Japanese government was planning on doing the same thing to us.

Answer 4

Yes!
The argument in contra is that Japan was on its knees already and about to lose the war. Probably true, but they would have fought till the last man and the additional victims of the war would have run into the hundreds of thousands.
Truman made the right decision and if it were not for that correct decision, the fathers or grandfathers of a lot of people who are on Y!A today would have died and they would never have been born.
Be grateful that this great President had the moral courage to do what he did.

Answer 5

Yes, I used to live in Japan and several Japanese people have told me that they felt the atomic bombs saved their lives. At the time even children were being trained to repel an invasion using sharpened spears. I have been to the peace museum in Hiroshima and I know exactly how horrific those weapons were, but they saved more lives than they took and that's what matters.

Anybody who doubts the fanaticism of the Japanese at the time should see the film of Japanese mothers throwing their own children and then themselves off the cliffs at Saipan rather than surrender.

Answer 6

Yes for two reasons. Japan would have fought to the last man on every island including the home island and would have dragged the war on for maybe another 5 years costing millions on either side.
The other was Japan as a nation needed some vengeance brought to it's doorstep after 10 years of the rape and slaughter millions in China, Manchuria, the Philippines and Indochina.

Answer 7

A debate that is going on to on the present time, yet maximum folk look to imagine definite. the alternative ought to've been both undesirable, if no longer a lot worse. See, the eastern were no longer going to provide up easily. the U. S. replaced into planning "Operation Downfall", which replaced into the spectacular push to rigidity Japan to capitulate. Casualty estimates were contained in the tens of millions on both area, and the eastern coverage replaced into to wrestle to the spectacular guy, lady and toddler. Had the bombs no longer been dropped, the conflict ought to've easily persevered to 1947. The Soviet Union had purely declared conflict on Japan around the time of the bombings. The island of Sakhalin replaced into seized from Japan, and the Russians are nevertheless there. Had the conflict persevered for 2 extra years, the Russians ought to have moved on to the numerous islands of Japan, and it ought to were very puzzling to get them out. the U. S. new that the U.S. replaced into going to be a situation after the conflict, so if there replaced into any thanks to end the conflict beforehand the U.S. grew even better (there replaced into: nukes), the U. S. replaced into going to take it. and they did.

Answer 8

No. There was absolutely no need. Emperor Hirohito had drafted an unconditional surrender statement days earlier. It shortened the war by about 3 days at the cost of some 300,000 lives. It also set an awful precedent that eventually lead to the arms race and the completely mindless threat of mutually assured destruction.

Answer 9

No! How dare one country decide to kill and impair civilians for decades?

We have been brainwashed by our media to say it ended the war. Yes, if Hezbollah drops an atomic bomb on Israel the war is ended too. It doesn't make it right.

War and WMDs are weapons of the coward

Answer 10

I think that shouldn't have happened. If America wanted to get even with Japan they should've thought of some other way to get revenge or justice they may say. Now, there are still people who suffer the effects of radiation. They might have inherited it, maybe their mother or father was still in the womb of his or her mother when that happened so the radiation that was released had affected the child.So you see, even those innocent people suffer the effects of that bombing.