2006-10-15 07:54:55 · 24 answers · asked by Stephanie D 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No.
We did not want to use it but after losing so many men in Europe the President just could not justify even more losses in the Pacific.
Also the President wanted to send the Soviets a message -- Don't screw with us.
The bomb has kept the peace between the USA and the USSR.
As terrible as the Atom Bomb is, it did save far more lives than it took.
2006-10-15 08:00:29 · answer #1 · answered by John16 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As an ex-soldier, I can say that revenge is a plate best eaten cold. The bombs were not cold at all. As far as the poor fool that thinks just 20-30 people died at Pearl Harbor well, look at the casualty list for the USS Arizona. AND we were not at war at the time. I t was a sneak attack. The day that will live in infamy. I have had the chance to get in some "stick" time on a person that has surrendered. I passed on it. Revege is in the mind of the person taking it. I don't think 'Ol H.S. Truman was thinking about revenge. He was looking at keeping lots and lots of U.S troops alive to go home to their family. A few (And yes, I stress a "few".) Japanese got cooked. More than the rate of death at Pearl. But, had we sent soldiers to Japan with the intent to take the Island, we would have lost many more troops than the Japanese lost civilians. I think we should use the bomb more often, especially since we have the "clean" ones now. Nuke 'em all, let God sort them out. Shoot the ones that still glow.
2006-10-15 08:29:12 · answer #2 · answered by rifleman01@verizon.net 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the war had lasted for 4 yrs by the time of the Atomic bombings. Japan had militarily lost but was still fighting. Teaching civilians how to repel the impending US invasion was the plan of the Japanese military.
The bombs were dropped to avoid a military invasion and swiftly ending the war. They achieved these goals.
One should not start a war and then expect mercy from the victors.
Also the allied militaries expected to see more than 1 million deaths of its soldiers. And the Japanese suffered 14 times higher military deaths. That means it is reasonable to expect more than 14 million Japanese would die during the US invasion.
That means the 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more humane than allowing the war to go on.
2006-10-15 08:28:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anthony M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First... Taurus009: the US CIVILIAN loses at Pearl Harbor were 68 killed & 35 wounded.
The US Military lost 2,335 dead & 1,143. Not to mention the destruction of our fleet and air wings in an unprovoked and undeclared attack
Revenge for Pearl Harbor specifically, no. Though Admiral Hasley as he steamed into Pearl the next moring was overheart to say "When this war is over, the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell".
Revenge for Japan's actions during the war, perhaps. Revenge for the Bataan Death March... Revenge for the Rape of Nanking... Revenge for the Kamikaze Attacks off Okinaw... perhaps
The use of the 2 Nuclear Weapons were authorized by the President, Harry S. Truman, who had been advised that an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would cost the US from 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives... not to mention the Japanese who were being trained to fight with spears and swords to the death.
I visited Nagasaki in 1989 and was moved... never again.
Unfortunately there are idiots who speak out the sides of their @SS... we caught a kid leaving our ship in Nagasaki who had the NERVE to be wearing a shirt that said "Tested Twice" with a picture of a mushroom cloud. He was taken aside for "counselling" by the chief and myself... he healed from injures suffered while falling down a ladder quickly.
2006-10-15 10:44:05 · answer #4 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure there was some of a revenge factor because Pearl Harbor was the 9/11 of it's day, but there were some other big reasons as well like saving tens of thousand of US soldiers lives by not having to invade main land Japan and stopping WWII as soon as possible.
2006-10-15 08:13:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of people look at it that way, but no. Those attacks were to stop the war. We had to convince the Emperor that it would be suicide to continue fighting a losing war. Had we not done so, many more lives would have been lost on BOTH sides. That's right, folks! The Bomb actually SAVED lives!
BTW, Nagasaki was NOT for fun. Until there was an official surrender, BOTH sides were perfectly justified in fighting on.
2006-10-15 08:05:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The hiroshima bombing replaced into the individuals very last plan to wipe japan out of the conflict, and at the same time as there might want to were some type of vengeful questioning from particular human beings the plan in the destiny replaced into to locate a thanks to make japan resign once and for all
2016-12-04 20:52:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No..it was to end the War. Had the bomb not been dropped, the war would have dragged on for a couple of more years, because the japanese did not want to stop fighting. After the second bomb was dropped, contact was made with washington to end the fighting.
2006-10-15 07:57:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hiroshima was to end the war. Nagasaki was to prove to the rest of the world that we would do whatever it took to create "peace".
2006-10-15 08:12:03 · answer #9 · answered by Kittie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - it was a way to end the war, without it being drawn out for several more years. Some have argued that terrible as it was - more people might have died in Japan, had the 2 nuclear weapons NOT been used, as the war dragged on & on.
2006-10-15 07:58:48 · answer #10 · answered by dryheatdave 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋