I have heard people complain that the A-bomb ended WW2..yet they enjoy the benefits of not living under Nazis?

Question

I would just like to hear different peoples opinions on whether the means justify the ends and under what circumstances should extreme measures be taken to protect a way of life?

Answer 1

Andrew L has obviously never read a history book on WWII in his life. After Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it was clear that Japan would rather sacrifice itself as a nation than surrender. Thus, the slogan "100 million die together."

The fact is, it took two atom bombs before Japan surrendered, and even then, there were militarists who were trying to confiscate the tapses with Hirohito's voice on them in order to prolong the war.

The atomic bombing of Japan probably saved 500,00 to 1,000,000 US lives by negating the need for an invasion of Japan.

The USSR already knew about the A bomb thru its spies in the Manhatten Project.
----------------
And I might add that it is easy for people like AndrewL to second guess Truman after the passage of 60 years. At the time, however, Truman had to weigh the cost of invading Japan agaionst possible further loss of life, both military and civilian.

Revisionist history may sound politically correct, but the exigencies of the situation support his decision.

Answer 2

Your analogy regarding the Nazi's is totally off base. The war in Europe was already over when the US dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Nazi's had already surrendered long before the A-bombs were dropped.

This extreme measure question of yours, shakes down to the old adage, "kill or be killed."

The archives from that era have been opened recently, and it appears that Japan was up to the same 'no good' as the US when it came to atomic weapons. Japan was, in fact, planning to bomb the west coast of the US with it's own WMD.

I have never lost a night of sleep over the bombings, however I do feel the pain of the women and children that suffered because of these events. If you are asking whether the US should consider it again, my answer is, absolutely and without hesitation! This is the only formula for survival, in a world filled with fanatics, as in the case of Iran, and Syria!

Answer 3

Dropping the bomb was little to do with saving a American lives or stopping the Nazis (the US put many of them back in power after the war).

Russia was entering the war against Japan from the north. The US was concerned that the war drag on and the USSR would get territory from the Japanese. They used the A-bomb to end the war quickly on terms favorable to the US.

And...

It was widely seen as a warning to the USSR of who the new boss in the region was (no onger Germany, Japan, or Britain).

The A-bomb being dropped was the US first act to launch the cold war which came after WWII.

They were willing to sacrifice a few 100,000 Japanese to send the message.

Answer 4

Everything you said is true. Yet, do you know people are still suffering from that one bomb. I guess, people would have wanted another alternative than the one used. Think, you are giving two extremes, the Nazis or the bomb, the heat at 102 degrees above zero or 60 below. There is no answer, and I just shy to think that mankind and his intellegent could find a better way to end that brutal war.

Answer 5

The atomic bomb was not dropped on Germany where the Nazis were. It was used against Japan. If the bomb had not been dropped, the loss of lives would have been much greater as the war in the Pacific theater dragged on. It wasn't a light decision.

Answer 6

We didn't drop the atomic bomb on the Nazis - they had already surrendered by the time those two bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hioshima and Nagasaki. And yes, it probably did shorten the war and save American lives. Considering the atrocities committed by the Japanese on American p-o-w's, the end most certainly justified the means.

Answer 7

I actual do no longer bypass with a million. i think of it relatively is a real mistake, to conflate what handed off below the Nazis with different genocides. there's a topic between 2 and 3 - the word has been used interchangeably in the two senses, with the aid of Jews and with the aid of others. some Jews sense strongly that as a results of word's resonance with the 'burnt options' of the Temple, and desirous to sacralize what became into so profane, that it is going to word only to the Jewish victims. yet we don't have yet another stable word to describe the whole horror of murdering targetted communities in that era, which comprise Roma and Sinti, disabled and mentally unwell human beings, gays and lesbians, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. those communities have been specially targetted for who they have been in themselves, something which could no longer get replaced, or became into seen that way with the aid of Nazis (for this reason the homicide of persons of Jewish ancestry who have been Christian converts or in any different case outdoors the Jewish community). i comprehend i exploit it in the two senses, and take it in a various way reckoning on the context. Which i assume does not rather help, yet is the certainty.

Answer 8

If we didn't nuke Japan, the US and Japan would have lost hundreds of thousands more people in intense fighting for the Japanese mainland.

Also, if we didn't nuke the Japanese, the Japanese would have dropped enriched uranium over San Fransico from planes launched by two large submarines. Our bombs fell 11 days before the Japanese planned to attack. They surrendered two days before. They were going to nuke us if we didn't nuke them.

Having said that, the US didn't know this, but they were still justified. If a nuke will cause less bloodshed and cost less money for both sides, then it is justified.

Answer 9

two atomic bombs ended WW11