Was it right back in 1945 for the United States to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities to end the war?

Question

Q#2. What makes that war any different then todays wars?
Q#3. Would that same solution be considered today?

Please answer all three questions....thanks!

Answer 1

It wasn't right to bomb Pearl Harbor .....The thinking is it saved American lives...they did bomb us first.

People were much more naive then....today we know the world is at risk.

It is being considered as we speak

Answer 2

1. Yes. The Japanese quickly sued for peace after the 2nd bomb. Without the bombs, the Japanese were fully prepared to fight to the death any invasion of their homeland. Conservative estimates were for well over 1 million US casualties, and 3 to 5 million Japanese casualties. In Japan alone. Do not forget that Japan's armies were still in the field in China, Indochina and Indonesia.

2. That war was a full out war, and included attacks against population centers as a legitimate military target. Targeting of civilian centers has since been outlawed per the Geneva Conventions. Today, even with more proliferation, the sane nations have no desire to open the Pandora's Box of WMD use. Most nations would rather resolve issues diplomatically, as they have much to lose and little to gain. The world has become dramatically more interdependent.

3. I do not believe there would ever come a point to have to make a decision between millions of deaths and the use of nuclear weapons. And I think most nations, even in war, would do anything and everything short of WMD, unless they were about to be annihilated.

The closest to this would be Iran's nuclear threat to Israel, which is a tiny country that could not withstand a nuclear attack, and might feel a preemptive strike necessary in order to continue existing.

Answer 3

The real reason the Bombs were dropped was because the Soviets were rushing everything they had to the Pacific. The entire might of the soviet forces was due to crash into Japan within days. The President hated the way Germany was divided and knew the hatred the Russians had for the Japanese. The wanted a total destruction of Japan and would have had the resources to do it. The Bombings ensured a quick decision by the Japanese and an assurance that the Soviets would not be at the surrender. War is war and yes we should always be ready to commit the Ultimate decision.

Answer 4

1. Yes. Defeating Japan without the atomic bomb would have required Marines invading Japan, which would have killed thousands of Marines and an estimated million Japanese. Also, Stalin was about to attack Japan, which would have made the situation even worse. And it ended the war.

2. The scope of the war. WWII was fought on four continents and two oceans. No war in human history has ever been greater or deadlier. Today's wars are mostly border skirmishes and wars against terrorists. Bombs are "smarter," enabling countries to minimize civilian casualties.

3. G*d I hope not. Today's nukes are hundreds of times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy.

Answer 5

1-yes it was the best (for us) solution of three horrible choices. Atomic attack, road and rail destruction until capitulation ( which would have increased the rice famine of later years terrible) or invasion costing us far too many lives (our death toll stood at 400,000 at the time) to be practical.
2- There is no difference between wars then and now except for our capability to avoid civilian casualties to a greater degree. NOTE: The "war" in Iraq is not a war. It is a low intensity insurgency conflict. Civil strife or "sectarian violence" as the call it now, does not count as war either. Not even civil war as there are no real objectives other than murder mayhem and revenge.
3-The same solution could be considered today given a comparable situation. But that would mean two forces of nearly equal conventional force participating in a protracted war. In that situation, it is unlikely that one of the participants would not be Nuclear capable in their armaments. So in the end.. Mutually assured destruction applies, if the two forces posses equal arms.

Answer 6

1. Yes.
2. The dropping of the bombs saved the lives of invading troops and of the japanese citizens who would have died in the invasion of Japan. Japan had never been successfully invaded ever, so it was a calculated risk.
3. If we were in a war with an island power wherein total victory was the goal of the war, then it might be considered. What makes it different was that we were the only one that had the bomb, even though Japan was close to developing their own bomb, and that Japan did not have the allies to respond to the bomb droppings. Remember, more people died in the fire bombing of Kyoto and Tokyo than in both A-bomb droppings.

Answer 7

1) Yes it was. Precisely because it ended the war.

2) Those wars were by far more "brutal". The enemy soldiers were not provided with lawyers by ACLU and US soldiers were not asked to go into combat with one hand tied behind the back and a hostile news anchorman sitting on their back.
OK, more seriously- the aim was to win the war FAST and with as little casualties as possible (only OUR guys count). If the enemy does not want to suffer casualties- they can always surrender. Plain. Simple. And no lawyers needed.

3) Pelosi and Kennedy would have a fit! Just imagine the outrage- US troops actually trying to win a war?!?!?! The mind boggles! So far as the Dems are concerned, the US military is there to make their politicians look good on photo ops and so as to have someone to kick around in budget hearings.
If the Iraq insurgency was fought by WW2 standards, it would have been over in 2 months- or less.

If you need comparisons- the whole of Iran was occupied in WW2- the north by USSR, the south by UK. No significant opposition was encountered.
In WW2, Iraqi troops rebelled on the side of Hitler (and they even got some German troops in to help them). Within 3 months the Brits kicked their butts

What has changed since then?

Answer 8

It was right. We were attacked by them. It made them surrender immediately. We would have had a long drawn out invasion of Japan with ground troops which would have led to carpet bombing of the whole country. More would have died on Japans side . And we would have lost tens of thousands of our men.2 Today we use smart weapons that are designed to minimize civilian casualties. But in war the moral of your enemy is closely tied to moral. We should allow some civilian deaths in order to make the cost so high that the enemy quits more quickly.3 We have better nuclear weapons (tactical nuke's) that explode below the surface.This contains the nuclear fallout more and is more effective on fortified positions. I do not see the US using first strike nuclear weapons. Simply because we have many very effective weapons at our disposal today. We have been fighting this war with kid gloves on so far. I think we should allow one month of all out war against the insurgency. I believe that will break their will and allow the democratic government in Iraq to gain control. This would allow our guys to come home much sooner. And it would be safer for our brave fighting men and women.

Answer 9

Yes, even the Japs and Germans agreed it was a good idea to use the bomb.

#2 It is different that "todays" war because we were fighting a known, uniformed and organized army.

#3 Same solution would be to go house to house and disarm all the people. Possibly change our rules of engagement and start having curfews and "no go" zones.

Answer 10

#1 The planners thought it was right. In their mind it put a quick end to the atrocities, and perhaps you would have to ask
what would happen if the non allies created the bomb first

#2, No different today, just any way of doing things, human destruction is horrific.

#3, The solution today would be to learn from it.

Answer 11

1. Yes
2. War is war, no matter what disguise it is wearing.
3. definitely yes.

Your fourth question should be: How could the situation be remedied?

My answer will be:

1. No country to have access to nuclear weapons, including the US herself.
2. Every country is to have nuclear weapons, so no one will dare think of any first or pre-emptive strike.