Do you think it is was necessary for President Harry Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Japan?

Answer 1

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 2

The fear of massive casualties resulting from a land invasion of Japan certainly played a part in American thinking. But I strongly believe that another motive was to impress the Soviet Union. Soviet forces were smashing through Manchuria despite Japanese military resistance. The Americans did not want the USSR to have the same influence on the ending of the Pacific War as it inevitably had in Europe - and the idea of the Russians occupying a part of Japan was anathema. But if the Russians had joined in an invasion such an occupation would have been inevitable. All told I think that the decision to use the bomb was the least bad option in a bad time.

Answer 3

No, and certainly not both bombs (to be fair to Truman there is much evidence that shows that the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki on the 9th of August was without his specific permission). The dropping of the bomb is generally justified as having prevented a land invasion of Japan that would have been much more deadly and destructive. However, the bombs dropped specifically targeted untouched civilian populations, and internal documents demonstrate that one of the main goals of the administration was to see what this new weapon could really do. As to preventing a land invasion of Japan, I believe there were other options open to the United States including offering Japan an attractive deal to end hostilities (which is what that Japanese government was looking for at the time having already decided that victory was impossible). This might not have saved "face" for the US, but it would have saved an estimated 200,000 civilian lives.

Answer 4

Yes. It saved an estimated million American lives and at least a million Japanese lives. Although less than a half million Japanese lives were lost to the bombs, the Imperial plans would have sacrificed the entire population of Japan if necessary.

Answer 5

Yes. The Japanese, towards the end of the word, refused to surrender and kept fighting beyond being beaten. They had to be killed one by one. The bomb ended the war with less loss to the US. . . . Remember, Japan attacked the US first.

Answer 6

Yes, I heard they were planning another attack.

I think it was worth it b/c all other countries believe that we will drop another one if need be. A great deterrent.

I wonder if the bomb contributed to the declining japanese population.....

Answer 7

Yes...Japan was not going to surrender and it, from what they think, actually saved lives in doing that. Not that loosing a life in war is a good thing but I think they were predicting that there was going to be about 100,000 allied dead and ten times that dead civilians.

Answer 8

Yes. It was a very difficult decision for him, but history has shown that it ended a conflict that could have killed millions more than were actually affected.

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

yes