was the decision to drop the bomb a military necessity?

Question

if not, was it justifitable for a reason beside military necessity? w.w.2

Answer 1

Yes.
1. To make sure Japan surrendered.

2. In an effort to end the war on the pacific theater and end to lose of American lives due to extended fighting.

3.USSR/Stalin was getting out of line and wanting to get involved. We needed to show him we could end it with out his help.

Answer 2

At the time and with the info that was available it was. The USA was involved with a war against a foe that they couldn't understand. Japanese Soldiers who ran out of ammo attacked heavily armed larger numbers with bayonet and rifle butt. Wounded Japanese hid grenades under their bodies so that if they died from their wounds before being attended to by the US troops the grenade would explode when their bodies were moved.Whole battalions died of hunger and dehydration rather then surrender.These became commonplace but when the US attacked Okinawa the civilians committed suicide, clutching their children to them, women jumped off cliffs.This was very hard psychologically on the US troops.It was expected by the Japanese government and they factored the "softness" of the Americans into their thinking when the American's surrender demands were recieved.They really thought that stubborn resistance causing greater causualties with the suicidal attacks, the kamikaze planes that they could get the US to back done and negotiate peace treaty. Their loses wasn't a factor. To consider a surrender demand that explained the need to due to losses the participants had to travel trough the Tokoyo right after the greatest firebombing in the war. More people died in that bombing than than died in the A-bombing. They were not affected by the unspeakable horror that surrounded them. These men rejected the surrender terms because they felt that the presentation of the demands and their tone suggested weakness. The people were ready to die for their God, the emperor and the government was quite ready to put them in a position they could do so in. Douglas MacAuthur said in a report to Gen. Marshall that it would take a million men to invade the home islands and that causualties would be high. Consider your the President, on one hand you can get the better part of a million men wounded or killed with all the resultant political fallout back home or you can drop a city killer on a nation whose sneak attack that started the war was still a by-word for treachery and duplicity. What would you do? Your best general tells you that any attack would be the greatest catstrophe for the US if you won and a true horror if you lost. The war in Europe was over and though there were many ETO soldiers who volunteered for the Pacific there was a strong feeling that the war was over and they had done their part. So were did you get you million men. How do you explain their sacrifice to the voters when it is revealed that you didn't have to send them but only a single bomber and one bomb. With all these factors what would you do.

Answer 3

I don't think the decision to drop the atomic bombs was one that was made lightly. I don't think any of them really expected the amount of devastation that was caused, but I don't think they really had a lot of other choice. The Japanese army generals were not going to surrender easily, and were quite willing to sacrifice whatever number of civilians was necessary to avoid it. It would have come down to a full scale invasion of the mainland, and required our soldiers to fight the entire Japanese population. The casualites would have included not only those killed in the actual fighting, but the great numbers who likely would have committed suicide and murder in anticipation of troops or simply out of desperation to avoid loss of face caused by defeat. Our casualites would have been high because American troops have never done well fighting against civilians. As a general rule, they don't shoot old folks and children, and hesitate to shoot women.
To prepare for a large scale invasion, the military no doubt would have bombed the entire chain of Japanese islands relentlessly. The amount of damage all over would have been devasting, not to mention the casualties would have been much higher to the civilian population. Although Nagasaki and Hiroshima were leveled, the remainder of the country was essentially undamaged, and after the war the Japanese were able to rebuild their country much faster than the Europeans were able to.
Beyond avoiding having to have our troops involved in a large scale invasion, we also were able to prevent the Soviet Union from mounting their own invasion. We had a treaty agreement with Stalin, if you recall, and once the war had ended in Europe, they were the only allies left in a position to assist us in ending the war in the Pacific. The Soviet army and Russian people had old scores to settle with Japan, if you are familiar with your history. They would not have been as likely to be concerned with civilian casualties, nor would they have made any effort to help the Japanese set up an independant government afterwards. Where we left the emperor in place, the Soviets most assuredly would not have. There would be no democratic form of government in post war Japan, it would have become a Soviet satellite country. Their presence in Japan would have been a threat to China, and I think they would have been a lot more enthusiastic in their support of North Korea-to the extent I think they would have taken control of the Korean peninsula. Although the Koreans didn't particularly care for the Chinese, the Koreans would have had even less love for the Japanese and Russians at the time. Had this scenario all played out, I hesitate to think of what the current political conditions would be in Asia.
It is easy in hindsight to pass judgement for and against the decision to use the first atomic bombs. We have luxury of knowing what did happen afterwards- they had no such crystal ball. They made the decision based on what they knew, what they wished to avoid, and knowing the future would be affected for good or bad by the decision they made. We can all debate all day, and there will still be people arguing for and against the decision. But you should consider, the people in Japan would not likely have the freedom to debate, nor in all probability would the Koreans- if the decision had not been made as it was.

Answer 4

"If not, became into it justifiable for a reason different than military necessity?" became into it because of military necessity, which would be argued given Japans military and fiscal and logistic subject of 1945 - exceptionally darned bleak. became into it justifiable for a reason different than... sure definately. Be the the Allied air offensive against Germany or the dropping of atomic weapons against Japan - right this is the deal. it rather is against the Geneva convention and regulations the govern war to salary an aggressive war against civilians - and no great society might try this way of element. because of the fact of this in the process the Nuremburg trials some German leaders have been stumbled on accountable of crimes against humanity for the bombing of Rotterdam working example. even nonetheless interior the Allies case - the Germans and eastern have been arming their civilians and giving them the mandate of protecting their place of beginning, taking the combat to the enemy. An armed civilian there-[by potential of has no risk-free practices decrease than the Geneva convention, the regulations of war deeming this way of individual not a civilian yet an armed combatant. it is the mandatory distinction, and the 'justification' that allowed using tension against what have been armed warring parties... not civilians; retaining in recommendations they could not prevented having tension used against them by potential of in straightforward terms elevating a white flag.

Answer 5

Many years after the war was over, some older Japanese admitted the bomb did them a favor, since their leaders had vowed to fight until the last man; woman; and child in Japan was dead. So, it not only saved us a couple million lives, but every Japanese person.

It is really easy 60 years after something happens for totally ignorant people to take another look at it, and conclude they could have done a better job.

I guarantee you if we faced the sort of attack from a country today that Japan did in the 40's, with dead soldiers from families in every block, all you know-it-alls would be screaming for the bomb to be used. Listen to the belly-aching and whining over less than 1,000 deaths of our soldiers per year in Iraq.

Answer 6

History shows that it was clearly a military necessity, to save the vast numbers of American and Allied lives that would have otherwise been lost in bringing the war in the Pacific to an end.

Unfortunately, it took many civilian lives, but many of these people were so indoctrinated by their leaders, and the tenets of the Shinto religion, that they would rather destroy themselves than surrender to the Allies. Many of them did jump into the sea and drown themselves as the Pacific islands were taken.

Answer 7

Yes it was the best military decision and it was necessary for us to drop it. The war was shorten, the life of thousand of American were saved and we won the war. This is just like when to people are fighting and you want to finish the fight with out getting to beat up, you look for a big stick and break it against his head, knocking him out and you accomplished the mission. Right. This is what we did in Japan, Japanese where not Angels.

Answer 8

Japan would never surrendered if we would have invaded. The manpower needed to invade Japan would have been staggering and the casualties would have been so enormous that we would have signed a truce first and Japan would have continued to be ruled by dictators and would have been another North Korea today, so in the interest of saving lives, yes it was a necessity militarily to have used the technology.

Answer 9

Unless you think that speaking Japanese and living in a world where only perfect looking people are allowed to survive then yes it was necessary to drop both bombs. The only reason the Japanese surrendered was because they believed that if they didn't a third bomb would be dropped.

Answer 10

The president made the decision....military advisors helped in the decision making process and the war ended.