English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The analyses of Dr. DeBakey and Dr. Beebe, and discussed the matter in depth with Professor Quincy Wright from the University of Chicago,; and Colonel James McCormack, Jr., a Military Intelligence officer and Rhodes Scholar who served in the OPD's small but influential Strategic Policy Section with another former Rhodes Scholar, Colonel Dean Rusk. Shockley said:
"the study shows that the behavior of nations in all historical cases comparable to Japan's has in fact been invariably consistent with the behavior of the troops in battle, then it means that the Japanese dead and ineffectives at the time of the defeat will exceed the corresponding number for the Germans. In other words, we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. This might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including [between] 400,000 and 800,000 killed."
That means Ameican dead would have exceeeded the deaths from the A Bomb and Japanese deaths would have been over 20 times higher

2006-10-24 22:24:39 · 11 answers · asked by mark g 6 in Politics & Government Politics

ChicnlipsThey had no intention of quitting after Midway. They could have stopped at anytime without fighting at Guadacanal, Iwo, Okinawa, luzon, Saipan, etc.. etc..

2006-10-24 22:34:48 · update #1

Tyrone - read the Japanese historical plans for the defence of the homeland by Japan's military. The military tried to overthrow the emporer when he surrendered after the A Bomb. They prefered the death of all Japanese to surrender

2006-10-24 22:37:27 · update #2

11 answers

Of course it was justified. Project Olympic would have been an absolute blood bath. The Atomic bomb saved both Japanese lives and American. In all likelihood it also gave the Soviets pause about any push into Western Europe.

2006-10-24 22:31:32 · answer #1 · answered by chad 3 · 3 0

From a strictly humanistic standpoint I am against anyone using nuclear weapons. However, I also recognize that the war would have lasted probably another 5 years and cost many on both sides their lives. The rules for wartime are not the same as peacetime and when an enemy is bent on destroying your way of life you are justified in defending yourself. This includes use of a strong offense and weapons at your disposal. Japan attacked the United States thus drawing us into that war. What has always troubled me the most about use of the bomb was the fact that Japan refused to surrender after seeing the devastating power of the first bomb making use of a second necessary.

2006-10-24 22:35:36 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1 0

Why all this endless soul-searching? We (USA) were at war.
And what's the freaking difference if EVERY death caused by our A-bombs on Japan had instead been caused by our country landing troops on the Japanese mainland and shooting each individual Japanese in the head? They'd still be DEAD.
But to answer the question as posted: "Yes, I support the use of the A-bomb in world war II"....To save one American life I would have taken the life of ALL JAPANESE.
PS: And to those who would condemn my soul: It's not my soul I'm worried about but my ***.

2006-10-24 23:30:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Truman wanted to show how the Russians how effective the A-bombs are that's why it's decided to be dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese were already beaten and it was just a matter of time before they surrender.

2006-10-24 22:32:16 · answer #4 · answered by tyrone b 6 · 0 0

The atom bombs were dropped to stop the war by forcing Japan to surrender and decrease the number of Amrican deaths since the Japanese are insistent of fighting it out until they are all killed.

2006-10-24 23:20:09 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 0

I completely agree with you. The Japanese would have fought until the last child if a land invasion had happened. Look at some of those battles. Instead of having some of their civilians captured, they killed the women and children instead.

2006-10-24 23:58:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It is easy to analyze things after the fact,
with the facts Truman had at the time. I think he made the right decision. If he had had better information- he probably would not have!

2006-10-24 23:05:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0 0

No, I think Truman weighed the costs of going and not going and decided he would save American life by dropping the bombs.

2006-10-24 22:29:19 · answer #8 · answered by bossmanham 2 · 0 0

the Japanese were ready to quit after Midway[they lost 4 carriers]

2006-10-24 22:29:32 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

The Taliban tried to kill a youthful woman for going to college. i do no longer think of Obama tried to kill infants in Pakistan, he tried to kill the Taliban. you should be a defender of the Taliban.

2016-12-08 20:52:20 · answer #10 · answered by bremmer 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers