were we right for dropping the atomic bomb.?

Answer 1

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them, have been subject to much debate. In the U.S., the prevailing view is that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place.

In the rest of the world, the prevailing view is that the bombings were an unnecessary act of extreme violence, and that knowingly inflicting harm of this magnitude on civilians was inherently immoral. Some further argue that as Japanese civilian leadership was covertly seeking an end to hostilities, the end of the war could have been much less tragic.

Answer 2

That one shows up periodically. Most people who answer it ignore the one key element in the reason we nuked Japan: they started it. Japan was quite the aggressor nation, having already brutally invaded both China and Korea (so much for them Orientals all looking alike, huh?) The U.S. was blocking their oil supplies in an attempt to protect these people. Japan, however, saw that as if WE were aggressors and attacked Pearl Harbor. Being an act of war, the U.S. responded in kind. However, both Roosevelt and Truman made clear that Japan must UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDER. That's very important. The Japanese generals and government wanted some kind of deal, but we knew that any "deal" would leave in charge the ones who caused the trouble to begin with. No deal. At the same time, we were working on what Nazi Germany was also working on, but we didn't give them time to finish it. We did finish it.
The U.S. was interested in ending the war, which the U.S. government figured the atomic bomb would do. It did. While horrific, it only killed about 80,000 in Hiroshima and fewer in Nagasaki (due to geography.) If the U.S. had invaded Japan, the resistance would have seen at least 200,000 Japanese killed--largely children with sticks--besides 100,000 or more American casualties. The fact is, fewer people died in those two nuclear blasts than would have died without their being used, and those were used ONLY because Japan wouldn't just quit it.
Oh, and the reason they did unconditionally surrender? The emperor correctly figured out that Tokyo (his location) was the 3rd target.

Answer 3

Absolutely not! the scientists working on the projecs never dreamed of such a use for it, and wouldn't have participated if they did.
Yes, the Japanese started it, but the Japanese targeted military objects, NOT civilians.
It WAS a Pandora's box. Now, the world is not surprised when civiliand die in wars, when you have ethnic cleansing, when one country can invade another with the excuse of freeing the people.
Wonder who bought that one..?

Nevermind.

Dresden made the allies terrorists, as my art-history teacher would say.
But, was it really that the Americans wanted to end the war sooner? I doubt it. The was was at an end anyway.
I suppose they just had to test the effects.

I doubt that the US, or anyone else, would use the bomb today. Why?
Everyone has one!
No one would dare use it from fear of retaliation.
In a funny way, that makes me feel safer...

Answer 4

A petition by at least half of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project pleaded with the President to not use the bomb on civilian targets, but rather demonstrate a show of force on some unpopulated Pacific island. Would that have forced Japan to surrender? Who knows?

There were several considerations going on at the time, namely:

1.There were some diplimatic feelers via the Swedish embassy from Japan regarding surrender options. Were the militaristic leaders behind the 'feelers' or did it only involve the political diplomats from Japan?

2. The allies took a stance of unconditional surrender which had the effect of hardening Japan's resolve.

3. The USSR was in the process of ramping up their attack against Japan and had the ideas of hegemy in the orient.

4. Many historians and political leaders at the time predicted an early end to the war would save hundreds of thousands of GI lives, especially after their bloody experience on Iwo.

5. I doubt that Truman knew the extent of the Pandora's Box that he was about to open. This did not make it right or wrong, it just points out some of the vague decision-making going on at the time.

6. From a legal standpoint, international law did not address indiscriminate bombing of civilians, via incendiary, carpet bombing or nuclear attacks. The Geneva accords didn't address this issue until 1949 after an uproar over Dresden, Coventry, London, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other area were raised.

As monday morning quarterbacks, we can easily state that the decision was wrong, based on humane reasons. But to me, a country that would attempt to civilize or moralize 'total war' at the time would most likely be defeated, to me that was the lesson of Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Answer 5

that historical question has been debated by many. the main arguments supporting it are: it shortened the war dramatically, by up to several years, and it saved many American and other allied lives, more then were killed in japan, and, not to be callous, but the point of war IS to win and to make the other guy submit by any means necessary and if you can save your poeles lives by killing thiers then per the annals of war its justified. a lso there is the claim by some that it was retaliation for pearl harbor.
the other side of the argument is that it unnecessarily killed civilians,while this is most unfortunate it was possibly not event eh worst atrocity of the war, possibly the fire bombing of Dresden was worse and even the rape of Nanjing
considering the after effects the use of the bombs in a historical context possibly greatly contributed to us wining hte cold war, being as we are the ONLY country to ever use such a device

Answer 6

It is a very difficult dilemma that you have asked. If you look at the destruction that it caused the Japanese even to this day I would say no. But the Truman administration had a hard decision to make because they knew if they had to invade the mainland of Japan there were have been numerous casualties on both sides and the possibility of losing a million casualties because the Japanese would have fought to the death both civilian and military.

Answer 7

I'm not sure that there is a black and white answer to that.
Were we right to defend a direct attack to our borders? I think absolutely!!!
Were we right to unleash the deadliest weapon ever used then or now? Not sure, but it got the point across and ended a horrific conflict. The only problem though is that many innocent civilians suffered terribly as a result of it, whereas, we lost only military.

They attacked a military installation during wartime. We removed an entire section of their country and devastated a population for decades.

(And please, before you start bashing because I used the word "only", I would never imply, nor do I believe, that loss of life from military troops is acceptable or unimportant.)

Answer 8

Yes. The war in the Pacific would have gone on a lot longer and cost a lot of lives, both Japanese and American, if Truman had not had the courage to use what we had worked so hard to develop in the way of "ultimate" weapon. It was horrible, but people forget how horrible conventional warfare had gotten by that time.

Answer 9

No.
It started making people all over the world hate you. We hate you, but we know that you will drop a bomb on civilians if we say it out loud. Did you see the use of radiation by the US in the Kosovo war?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/low_war.html

Answer 10

Yes. Truman's military planners estimated that a sucessful invasion of the Japanese mainland would take at least a year and would cost in excess of one million American lives since by then every man, woman, and child in Japan was ready to fight to the death to defend their homeland.