Was bombing Hiroshima/Nagasaki necessary to end war or ruthless evil by US?

Question

I have read that it was felt that many more lives were saved by ending the war from the dropping fat man and little boy, but the A bombs killed mostly civilians. Was this really necessary?

Answer 1

The alleged reason for the nuclear bomb program of the USA was that the Germans were building a nuclear weapon. When news of Germany’s failure to create such a weapon was learnt, America continued with building its nuclear weapons. Japan had no nuclear program but the US military still used the bomb. Truman justified the dropping of the bombs by citing Pearl Harbor, where the United States had been attacked without warning. What Truman failed to mention was that Pearl Harbor was a MILITARY target, whereas in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, civilians were the target. His other explanation that it was to shorten the agony of war was a thin justification.

What popular history fails to tell is that Japan was ready to surrender BEFORE the nuclear attack but the United States insisted that Japan’s surrender be unconditional. The Japanese wanted to negotiate. Those negotiations would have saved the 120,000 civilians killed and the equal number wounded; many horribly disfigured; most of who also died. Prior to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the US also firebombed Tokyo, killing 100 000 civilians.

Perhaps the real reason the US bombed civilians can be found in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Summary Report on the Pacifica War, dated July 1, 1946:

“On 6 August and 9 August, the first two atomic bombs to be used for military purposes were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. One hundred thousand people were killed, six square miles or over fifty percent of the built up areas of the two cities were destroyed. The first and crucial question about the atomic bomb has thus been answered practically and conclusively; atomic energy has been mastered for military purposes and the overwhelming scale of its possibilities had been demonstrated.”

Answer 2

Actually Germany was working on atomic bombs and when it became apparent that they were lost, sent a U-Boat to Japan with their research. The idea was that Japan could develop a submarine dirty bomb and attack LA with the research the Germans had already done. So what ended up happened was the U-Boat found out Germany had surrendered and they decided to surrender and go home instead of going to Japan. So what you were talking about could have happened. What would have happened though is that the USA was already getting war-weary as it was. If Japan had done some type of strike against the US Mainland, it would have been Pearl Harbor all over and the Japanese people would probably be practically extinct since the US now solely focused on Japan since Germany was done would have overwhelmed them.

Answer 3

Yes, it was necessary. The US did projections of how many would die in an invasion of the Japanese mainland, an estimated casualties on the Allied side were over 1 million, and on the japanese side, 80% of the total population. We learned that the normal civilian would fight "For the Emperor", and be willing to die.

However, bear in mind that we know nothing about radiation poisoning. We didnt know that people would be sickened and die by the fallout.

But in a strictly win/loss problem, which is what the Persident had facing him, dropping those bombs saved countless lives.

On a morbid side note, the bodybags we stockpiled for a projected invasion lasted us all thru Vietnam and Korean wars..

Answer 4

Unfortunately, "Yes". For several reasons. It did save the lives on both sides of the war. If the US did send in ground troops to Japan, countless more lives and properties would have been destroyed. Also, and I know this sounds bad, but the US had just created a new "toy" and had one the race to create such a new toy. It was looking for a place to use it and unfortunately, Japan was the place picked to test it out. Another bright side of this is that the US rebuilt Japan and turned it into an industrial powerhouse that it is today. It's been theorized that Japan would have never experienced this growth if it wasn't for the aide given to it by the US. War sucks!

Answer 5

Hey the truth is the Russians (all of the Red Armies) were heading for Japan to destroy it 100% . Truman did not want another meeting on how to divide up Japan. He saved Japan and the Japanese and kept Stalin from his goal of Owning all of Northern Japan Tokyo Included!

Answer 6

If we hadn't done it you may be speaking Japanese or German!Also many of our fathers and grandfathers may have died if the war had carried on any longer.It was a very harsh way to end the war but wasn't it better that we dropped the bomb before they did?

Answer 7

These were military targets. The US could have bombed Tokyo but did not want to shatter Japan.

The truth is, had we invaded the Japan with a ground force, there would have been countless millions on both sides killed.

Answer 8

Yes it was, it was absolutely necessary. The Japanese were going to fight down to the last woman and child. We tried to get their attention with the first. It didn't work. The second did after we let them keep their emperor. By the by the mortality rate in Japanese POW camps was over 30% whereas the German POW camp mortality rate was 3%, I won't apologize for Anything when it comes to the war that Japan started.

Answer 9

It was military necessity.
It was that or land invasion which would have killed more civilians.
Can't say it was racist because the bomb wasn't used on German cities.
That is because the atom bomb was tested AFTER German surrender.
Ask the Koreans or the Chinese about Japanese brutality.

Answer 10

We'll never know what would have happened if they made a different decision, so there is no way anyone can say a definite "Yes it was right" or "No it wasn't". It's all down to interprutation now. I can see both sides of the story, but I wasn't there, so I am hesitant to say which I agree with.