was it necessary The Atomic bomb during WWII?

Question

I know everyone is going to have your own opinions on this. I just want to know If you believe it was right why? Do you believe that dropping a bomb on populated area with innocent lives and even US P.O.W were was necessary? Or do you believe that it shouldnt' of happened and that the US should of sent more US Soldiers over and risk their lives with a country that did not want to back down?

Was there another way that they could of ended the war without risking so many lives?

I been reading up on different things and found this stuff how true it is i'm not sure.

Japan has asked Russia to help with bringing peace with the US on one condition their emperor remain on the throne. The Us wanted them to surrender unconditonally so Japan refused the Us then dropped the A boomb. Later resulting in uncondtional surrender and emperor remaining on the throne. So they both got what they wanted before the bomb was even dropped? I don't know what's your guys view on it..

Answer 1

The problem was with Harry S Truman (there is no period -- the "S" is all there is....). He was controlled largely by Winston Churchill, and other interests, such as Bertrand Russell. Contrary to popular belief, Russell was not a "peace-nik" -- he advocated the nuclear bomb be dropped on Russia (the Soviet Union, at that time). The intention was to so scare nations of the world, that they would accept surrender of their sovereignty, in favor of a "world government". Japan was a "horrible example" of what could happen...

The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was totally unnecessary; the negotiations you reference were in fact going on between the US, Japan, and a Cardinal (can't remember his name, but he became Pope Paul VI); the Japanese were completely surrounded by the US Navy -- there was a complete blockade of all goods coming into or out of Japan.

Answer 2

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself.

Answer 3

The dropping of two Atomic bombs on Japan that soon ended W.W. 11 is a hot topic to debate.

It's lasting effects are being seen to this very day.

Hundreds of thousands are physically damaged, as are the new generations descending from those innocent victims.

This was a time when a race to get the first Atomic bomb was being seen as imperative to getting control of a world in shambles. Little did they realize the long range effects of this bomb.

Today, with many nations having these deadly weapons at their disposal, many fear it will once again be used carelessly.

My opinion is that it was a horrible way to end W.W. 11, and too many innocent people paid the price.

Then again, all wars have been damaging to many innocent people.

Mankind can't seem to come to terms with fellow man to find ways in which to live and work toward better relationships.

They are quick to pull the trigger, and worry about the consequences at a later date.

Answer 4

Yes the amount of casualties on both sides if there was an invasion would have been more than both of the bombs killed combined. Russia already knew about the Manhattan project and there most likely would have still been a cold war and nuclearweapons probably still would have spread to many nations. Also originally the japanese had a plane to drop a dirty bomb on San Francisco two days after they ended up surrendering.

Answer 5

The decision to drop the bomb was a gut wrenching decision to make. The Japanese were going to fight to the last man standing. If we would have invaded Japan that would have cost an additional 100,000 lives over and above what we had already lost to the people who attacked us. This would have also resulted in millions of Japanese lives lost. Japan wasn't going to ask Russia crap. Japan was going to go to war with Russia, There were no negotiations going on there. After the second bomb they realize we were pretty serious about it. I'm not apologizing nor am I sorry for the actions we took in that war. We didn't start it, but by God we finished it.

Answer 6

Once the plane was actually in the air and clouds covered the view of their target they continued to circle about and with the weight of the bomb they would not have had enough fuel to land safely back on friendly soil so they caught a glimpse and fired away. At the time we didn't know or fully understand the magnitude of what we were doing. I hindsight I'm sure almost everyone would agree that the second bomb was totally unnecessary.

Answer 7

Absolutely! My Dad had just spent two and a half years fighting in Europe, and they told him that they were going to send him to Japan for that invasion. It was estimated that we would lose maybe a million men trying to take Japan with an invasion. The bomb put all stops to that. I maybe would'nt be here had we not dropped the bomb.

It was a difficult, but couregeous decision, but our best alternitive at the time.

Japan woudn't have surrendered had we not showed them the full force of our power, and thousands, if not millions, of lives would have been lost with a prolonged war.

Answer 8

We wouldn't have had the chance to send soldiers. We were better than six months away from being able to perform a full scale invasion of Japan, and Russia was moving armies into neighboring countries from which they could invade.

We dropped the bomb to convince Japan to give up before Russia invaded.

Answer 9

You have to try and understand that the mindset was still quite different then. The current politically correct tactics of media warfare hadn't been adopted yet. The goal was to win a war. You win a war by an atrocious amount of death and destruction being lain upon your enemy. Was it necessary? That depends upon what scale you measure victory upon. By the scale of war, it was a success. On the scales of humanity, I'm sure the weight of the conflict has much to do with why we all dread nuclear weapons as we do.

As for your last paragraph regarding the unconditional surrender of the Emperor of Japan; also remember that Japan's unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor was eerily similar to the attacks on the U.S. by the terrorists of 2001. I think the response in the 1940's was, and is, much more harsh than what we have seen to date in response to the more recent attacks on our country.

Answer 10

I think it was necessary and in the end, saved civilians lives. I see it this way, it took two bombs for Japan to surrender. You'd think that they would have an honorable way out after they saw the effects of the first bomb.

Also, if you want to look at massive civilian casualties, look at the German city of Desden; read slaughterhouse 5.