It's really necessary for US to use nuclear bomb to win the WW2, can it be done in different way?

Answer 1

we had to decide if killing japanese civilians was worth saving possibly millions of american military men. We chose our boys, and dropped the bomb.

It seems today we have stopped valuing the life of an american over other nations. I dont know if thats a bad thing, but i think the climate of today would make it alot harder to drop the A-Bomb than it was in the 40's

Answer 2

The mere action of US of using nuclear weapons is a WAR CRIME itself. There's no doubt about it. The bombs were focused on civilian territories with the excuse of having a better ending. The bombs didn't only leave a physical trace of destruction, the radiation stayed on the lands avoiding any human prosperity on it. Can be compared as much as evil as the Jewish genocide.
There was no visual need to launch those bombs on Japan, the war tide was already turned over and the Americans were close to victory. And who can say how many lives would cost the invasion of Japan? Not reliable, as they are easily manipulated. These actions were never judged as the US won the war. ( Just another point of view out of the American closed mind ; ) )

Answer 3

Not with the situation the US was facing at that time.The Japanese were the 40's equivalent of today's Islamic terrorists.A land invasion of Japan would have cost maybe 100,000 US military dead.The Japanese military dead would have been probably 500,000 to a million plus.If Allied bombers had continued their assault on Japanese cities millions of civilians would have died(WW2 was a total war).There was no distinction between military and civilian targets.One only has to look at the damage to London during the blitz and the horrific destruction of German cities, including many with no military importance such as Dresden.Truman was well aware of this and sought to save Allied soldiers lives and by so doing also many Japanese lives.Also please remember that the Soviets were not fighting for the Allies as many would like to think;they were fighting the Germans because of their invasion of the USSR in violation of their non-agression pact.If not for this,they would have gleefully stood by and watch the Germans annhilate the Allies and then shared the spoils.The A-bombs were a warning to them as well as the quickest way to end the war against Japan!!!!

Answer 4

Yes it could have happend a different way.

Japan could have surrendered before the bomb was dropped. They were given the option, they refused.

We could have invaded the islands and millions of people would have died. More on the Japanese side than Americans. The Japanese people were willing to fight to the death, every last one of them. The Japanese people were told that Americans would rape the women and eat the children. Propaganda that worked when the Marines invaded Okinawa... The people committed suicide, jumping off cliffs before surrendering or coming face to face with Americans. The same thing would most likely have occurred with any invasion of the Main Japanese Islands.

We could have fire bombed the cities instead, most of the houses were wood, that would have kill hundreds of thousands as well. Bombing campaigns that could have lasted months before the invasions.

Answer 5

Various estimates of troop loss were made pending an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

All the estimates indicated that the allied forces would suffer one million casualties in that invasion.

The estimates of Japanese casualties varied widely.

Bear in mind that when US forces seized certain islands in the Pacific, large numbers of Japanese committed suicide by various means.

Right or wrong, the use of the Fat Man and Little Boy greatly reduced the loss of life that the Japanese and the Allies would have suffered.

Yes it could have been done a different way, but at what cost?

Answer 6

The way it was done was effective enough. It prevented a major loss of both American and Japanese lives by not having to invade the main island and destroyed the two biggest areas of factories still producing war materials. Any other way would have been less effective and may not have brought Japan to the peace table

Answer 7

The Manhatten Project was started because the US thought Germany had a similar program. But with Germany's defeat, we had a nuclear program with no real competition. But Russia was viewed as future opposition in the post war world. America used the bomb largely to demonstrate it to the Russians.

Fact is, Japan was trying to surrender from early on it the war. (They were planning to knock out the US Navy, take a lot of pacific property, then quickly settle a peace treaty.) America wanted a complete surrender, a lot to ask when Japan viewed their leader as a holy figure.

Answer 8

Had the allied forces tried to invade Japan a-la D-Day, the estimate was that one million men would need to hit the beach, as opposed to the one million that made up the ENTIRE D-day force (air land and sea), and that allied casualties would have been somwhere around 250,000-300,000 killed and wounded. But here is a weapon that will allow us to decimate the Japanese while allowing risk to as few Americans as possible.

As to afterwards, after everyone began to accumulate nuclear weapons, there was the risk of an itchy trigger finger, and everyone was excruciatingly nice to each other because of that.

Answer 9

It was the only way to stop the Japanese and the war in general. It brought the world to its knees so to speak. Apparently the fallout wasn't that bad either ro Japan woudln't still be there so frankly I am not afraid of nuclear weapons. The localization and scale of an attack would be scary only in that the world is not used to that kind of devastation. We weren't ready for that Tsunami either but its size is comparable.

Answer 10

At time they felt it was the only way to make the Japanese stop fighting the war. You could make theories about what would have happened "if" but it's already past so you will never know what effect another outcome would have had.