Do you agree the USA should have dropped the A-Bomb on Japan in 1945?

Answer 1

This is for "VICTORSCH". HELLO, ANYBODY HOME? What planet are you from? Haven't you ever seen the actual films when we dropped the bomb on Japan? Ask any person who was born in Japan if there is an A-Bomb. Daaaaaaaaaaaaa...is there a singer named Madonna? Cher? Brittney Spears? Prove it. The world is really flat. Etc...etc.... You must be writing from a mental ward.

Answer 2

No. Though I've heard and understand the argument for doing it. That invading Japan would have brought about millions of more deaths on both sides . . . that Japan would have fought to the last man, etc. Still, I think it opened the door to nuclear wars and am amazed no one else has used a nuclear bomb on anyone. And while I also understand the argument, certainly, it always sounds odd when the U.S. dictates to another country -- Iran, at the moment -- we have it but you CAN'T! I sure as hell don't want Iran to have it either, but it's a bit like a father who's done drugs his whole adult life telling his child: Don't smoke pot, it's BAD for you!

Answer 3

conflict jointly as poor needs to have a winner, usa placed an end to the conflict and did what the jap call "stored Face" by potential of decimating Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the atomic bombs, usa confirmed a superiority by no potential earlier seen in conflict, the lack of ability of lives the place some distance under a floor invasion, and Japan had set the precedent of killing harmless civilians, women human beings and childrens, with their cowardly attack at Pearl Harbor, so in an attempt to stem the huge losses of human lifestyles, usa confirmed the international merely the place the capability base replaced into, they destroyed the jap' Spirit and reason their unconditional resign, and offered peace to the international plenty speedier than the different known approach, it took over 50 years for the different race or u . s . to take on the loose international returned, yet on September eleven 2000, we as quickly as returned observed a cowardly attack on harmless lives while the twin towers have been attacked by potential of yet yet another team of extremists with the view that in the time of easy terms they could be precise, yet another conflict which could in easy terms end with one winner if we are to stay a quite loose society

Answer 4

1. Yes, I believe we should have, because they were never going to surrender. Even when the Emperor surrendered, there was an attempted military coup, to prevent the surrender and to continue the war.

2. In response to Ellie, above; Pearl Harbor was a calculated attack, planned to cripple the US Navy, and had nothing to do with assetts and oil. Yes, we froze their US assetts, and quit selling them oil; but the Japanese were attacking and terrorizing and raping one-third of the world! They had been doing this for years, they were already allies of the Nazis, and they had created the largest slave labor system the world had seen for more than a hundred years.

Of course we cut-off their oil! And at the end, we refused to let them negotiate a ceasefire , we forced them to surrender, and that was the rationale for the A-Bombs.

Answer 5

Pearl Harbor and the atom bomb cant even compare to having the same results. To tell you the truth it was retaliation. We froze all their assets and placed embargo on oil. Oil of which they needed. the prime minister was faced with a ultimatum and he decided on Pearl Harbor.

Answer 6

Yes, because the loss of life would've been at least 500,000 greater if an Allied invasion had occurred.

Answer 7

Of course. If we didn't we would have lost the war. The ends justify the means.

Answer 8

yes. i no it was a tradgedy for the japanese but it had to be done. if not the outcome of the war would be completely different. no one said war was easy

Answer 9

yes, yes i do. id say it was about the same as attacking pearl harbor.

Answer 10

ABSOLUTELY,WE WON THE WAR DIDNT THEY.