Was the US right in using nuclear bombs to end WW2?

Question

Using Iwo Jima and Okinawa as examples of japanese vs american battles, the fight for mainland Japan would have been extremely bloody and most historians accept half a million to a million U.S. casualties in invading Japan.

Yes, Russia invaded Manchuria as well, but the nuclear bombs were a big step in ending WW2.

"Japan would have surrendered anyway"

They rather commit suicide than become U.S. prisoners, or fight to the death. Don't you know WW2 history?

Answer 1

The Japanese abhorred the idea of surrender. Even after the second bomb was dropped, they delayed their surrender for as long as they could. With their record for wartime atrocities, do you honestly believe the Japanese would have hesitated to use such a bomb on Los Angeles or San Francisco if they had developed it first?

The Japanese brought it all on themselves. You have to put the bombing in the context of the times, not in today's terms. I wonder how the survivors of the Rape of Nanking felt about the death of Japanese innocents during the war? When you declare war on the world, you invite the wrath of the world. The Japanese got what they deserved and what they would have visited upon us if they'd had the chance.

Answer 2

I don't know. But more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities then died from both the nukes dropped on Japan combined. Also the Japanese are an honorable people, and it can be argued that bombing them gave them the reason to surrender that they were looking for. Does either of these things make it right? I don't know. But the face is that Japan surrendered after the bombs were dropped.

Answer 3

Absolutely. There were only two other options.
1. Have a conventional invasion of Japan which would have cost an estimated one million allied soldier deaths and millions of civilian deaths in Japan.
2. Blockade Japan and continue to conventionally bomb it's infrastructure for several years which would have been horribly inhumane. It is likely that half of Japan's population would have starved to death before capitulating.

Answer 4

If you start a war you better be able to end it ( unlike dubya). The point is, the Japanese attacked the USA. How the victorious country ends a war is of their own method and choosing. But had the Japanese not attacked the USA, the USA would not have dropped the two bombs.

Answer 5

War is not civil and there is no way to make it that way.The point of war is to utterly defeat your enemy.That that has been some how twisted through politics Is the single factor that contributes to high casualty rates.The winning is the important thing the how is less than nothing.If we lose the war but had the moral high ground what good is it we are still subjects now of those who had no regard.

Answer 6

Yes... for one thing it saved tens of thousands of US lives.. that alone justified using them.... secondly it saved multi thousands of Japanese lives by ending the war sooner than would otherwise be possible... What the whiny libs don't mention is that the firebombing of Jap cities killed more civilians that both A-bombs combined. But, don't try to confuse the Whinging Liberals with any facts.... They will hate America anyway.

Answer 7

No, it began a nuclear race with no end.

And no one will ever win.

Japan would of surrendered anyway.

History lesson for you.......Japan was negotioating surrender for 4 months BEFORE the bomb was dropped. AND, the terms were the same as AFTER the bombs were dropped. The USA just wanted to drop the bomb they invested a fortune in. SAD.

Answer 8

Wrong
they should had isolated island by keeping marines all around and wait for few year to invade weaken japan
as they did for iraq.

Answer 9

Have you seen The Last Samurai? The Japanese were crazy.

Answer 10

It was only to prove to the Russians that they were crazy enough to do it.. they had already won the war at that point anyway and just wanted to terrorise and punish them