should we have dropped a nuclear bomb on tokyo thereby killing millions as opposed to thousands?

Question

seriously we should have nuked the whole country

i know we nuked nagasaki and hiroshima dipshihities

Killem all

Answer 1

No, we needed the Emperor alive. He was the only one with the moral authority over the Japanese people to compel them to surrender and make it stick.

Answer 2

The answer is no for two reasons:

1. If you want to stop a conflict, you do not do it by exterminating the leadership that can pull the plug. Considering the fact that the emperor and all the needed governmental facilities for doing things were in Tokyo, this would have been a very bad idea.

2. almost 70 percent of Tokyo was ashes from all the incendiary bombing that had been done to that city. it wouldn't have been productive to keep on burning it.

Answer 3

Most of the time, war isn't about exterminating the enemy. Usually it is a way to get them to do something or stop doing something. If we blasted Tokyo, who would have issued the surrender? We would have been fighting the war for another couple months while Japan figured out who was in charge!

We wanted them to stop fighting and go back to their island, and the A-bombs speeded that process up by at least six months, so the bombs accomplished their mission. Whether it was worth it to unleash city-destroying WMDs on the world is another topic, but I can't see how blasting Tokyo helps the Allies cause in any way.

Answer 4

No need. By the time nuclear weapons became available, Tokyo had been almost completely destroyed by fire from US incendiary bombs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they both had significant military facilities and neither had sustained much damage up to that time.

Answer 5

In the day, they knew what the outcome of dropping that bomb would be. The price that japan paid in lives is the driving factor in all wars today. No one wants to pay that high a price ever again. But the US knew that if they would save millions of American lives by dropping the bombs and forcing an end to the war, therefore they were dropped at Japanese expense. War is cruel, but necessary. Saving the sanctity of Peace and freedom comes with a high cost to all who either try to destroy or save it.

Answer 6

It was faster to do it this way then to fight a war with a country who outnumbered the Americans by tons. The end more then justifies the means comes to mind when I think of this subject. To save hundreds of thousands soldiers they had to kill all those people to end a war that they should never have gotten the Americans involved in.

Answer 7

If we wanted to be malicious, maybe we should have. But what would that have accomplished other than killing thousands of more people and destroying Japans spirit to survive after the war. No, we chose to be strategic in our selection of cities opting to destroy main industrial cities while afflicting the fewest civilian causalities. Even though our actions seemed barbaric they were still humanitarian.

Answer 8

We werent trying to blow up as many people as we could; we were making a point. That point was that the Japs needed to stop f@cking w/ America becuase Americas getting sick of it and isnt afraid to end it all right now. If they would have kept the war going for much longer, we probably would have nuked bigger cities.

Answer 9

actually, we only dropped nukes on nagasaki and hiroshima. no where near tokyo.

Answer 10

Your question does not make sense. We dropped the atoms bombs to prevent the deaths of millions of American soldiers and millions of Japanese civilians.