During WWII, should the US have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

Please back your answer up with some reasoning.

Answer 1

I personally would love to not have that type of history and death toll on anyone's, let alone the US's, hands. The fact of the matter was though, was that the Japanese government were not going to back down to us and where already playing dirty ball. Pearl Harbor broke every rule of engagement in the book, but once again, that's war. Without dropping those bombs, the war would've gone on far longer, the death toll would've continued to rise, and there most certainly would've been attacks on US soil by the axis of evil. I think the US government did what they had to do, I wish that wasn't the case, and I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision. I'm sorry innocent people had to pay the price but those are the casualties of war that a nation takes into toll when they decide whether or not to engage in warfare, though no one could've imagined the power of the bombs, Japan was warned and given proof of the bomb's existence and did not back down. As a matter of fact, after the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese government had three days between the next bomb's dropping and still weren't going anywhere.

With all that said, I wish it didn't happen.

Answer 2

LOL

This is the topic that my sister and I were arguing about. Should US dropped the bomb on the two cities??

For me yes, I live in Malaysia and in WWII Japan drove away British and conquered Malaysia (it was no called Malaysia back then, it was something Malay Land or something). People then thought that it was good somebody drove the British away. Japan parade is the motto Asia for Asia, so we were thrilled for a while. But it turned up that Japan is worse that the British. British only colonized Malaysia and only wanted spices and tin, The Japanese wanted to control everything from Language, Currency, Government etc. They also made Chinese immigrants in Malaysia to pay 50 million to the Japanese government as a fine for China attacking them. Imagine 50million 50 years ago, that is an insane amount. Life was hell when the Japanese took over. people cant go out to farm or risk being shot, cant go out to trace or get risk being bombed.

With all of that happening, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stopped it and Japanese surrendered. Even now some veterans of the war still hate Japanese products. So I think the bombing was something that had to be done.

Answer 3

I don't really like it, but the alternative wouldn't have been much better. Both bombs killed about 214,000 people altogether, although an attack on mainland Japan would have been probably just as costly. The US lost about 7,000 troops taking the small 8 mi. sq. island of Iwo Jima. Invading the Japanese mainland would have been suicidal--the Japanese were fiercely territorial and even the civilians would've fought to the death, so trying to claw through each small island and the mainland would've been extremely, extremely costly for both the Americans and the Japanese--on Iwo Jima, 21,000 Japanese soldiers were killed. If the US had opted to invade the Japanese mainland and the surrouding islands, the resulting casualties would easily have matched the roughly 200,000 killed by the bombs, if not surpassed the figure. Thousands of American soldiers would've died, as well as considerably more Japanese soldiers and even civilians. I would guess that the bombs probably killed fewer people than the attack on Japan (which was the only other alternative) would have.

Answer 4

The people in Japan's government who wanted to fight on almost overthrew the emporer and continued the war when it was about to end. There were many Japanese with so much blood on their hands that they had no reason to want to surrender and face execution by the Alllied powers.
The Japanese people were of course caught in the middle. They had started a war via their government and were now being bombed into submission, only they would not submit.
The shame was so strong for the Japanese that the Emporer said they had to endure the unendurable and he meant it. It was unthinkable for their national pride to surrender.
They lost far more people to the bombing and firestorms in their cities than the atomic bombs ever killed. Still they didn't surrender until the 2nd atomic bomb was dropped.
If you can honestly say that we shouldn't have dropped the atom bombs, I call you deluded or at least ignorant of the true Japanese aversion to surrender.
The worst part is now Japanese history concentrates on the bombing of their islands rather than their aggressive conquest and ruthless occupation of other countries.

Answer 5

I find it interesting that so many people think that death is the answer. An eye for an eye and the hole world is blind. I am an Iraq war veteran. I was a medic. With all the pain that I have seen I can tell you absolutely that war has never begot peace! In response the person who thinks it was a show of force to the Russians. Sorry to tell you this but you really need to read more history books. The Cold war didn't insew antil after the Japanese surrender. Russia became pissy with the US because we promised them a second front to draw the Germans away for almost 5 years before we delievered. As we love to hail ourselves as the conquering hero, keep in mind that if the Russians, British, and French Resistance hadn't been doing their absolute best to keep them at bay as long as they did we very well could have lost that war. To wrap this up... I don't believe that the bombs (either of them) were necessary. History has shown that there are plenty of non-violent ways to end any argument of any scale.

Answer 6

Besides being a tad academic at this point...
For myself and my brother and sisters, all five of us, I'd have to say yes. Dad was being staged in the Philippine Islands in 1945 awaiting the orders to carry out the invasion of the Home Islands.
The old saw about the Japanese high command being about to surrender is thin. They were going through back channels when everyone had wireless radios. They could have broadcast the surrender "in the clear". Even after the official surrender there were plots to overthrow the Imperial Government, lacking only the Emperor's approval.

Answer 7

Should? I don't know.
But, what I DO believe is that there was a dual purpose in the American government's decision to drop the atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities.
One was to force Japan to surrender.
Two was to show the Soviets, who as a communist state were ideological enemies of America, that we had the bomb and were willing to use it.

Answer 8

for 2 motives. a million) A.) usa of america replace into hoping to apply the bomb to make the Japaneses renounce, for they in spite of the undeniable fact that an invasion on the japan important land might value the lives of a few a million million American infantrymen. notwithstanding the bomb did not get japan to offer up, we confirmed them that they does not be lasting very lots longer interior the conflict. B.)What truly ended the conflict replace right into a huge carpet bombing of roughly 20,000 bombers and combatants, lasting for 3 immediately days ultimately tension japan to offer up. additionally the phobia that the Russians might Invade, because of the fact of a Ruso/eastern conflict that the eastern lost against the Russians it sluggish close to international conflict a million. 2) A.) The bomb replace into additionally outfitted to "scare" the Russians of our advance technologies, unquestionably "shop them of their place", unquestionably to maintain them from taking on different international places like Germany did. President Roosevelt saved telling Joseph Stalin (the chief of Russia) that we had this new secret weapon of untold capacity which could interior the conflict. B.) Stalin confirmed no interest to it because of the fact while the bomb replace into being outfitted he had Russian spies that we are sorting out the way it replace into being outfitted. The spies truly payed off, because of the fact approximately 5 years later the soviet union had atomic weapons.

Answer 9

Yes, and for exactly the reasons given. The outcome of the war was essentially determined, but the Japanese refused to admit defeat. The nukes saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

Answer 10

Yes, because there would have been over a million soldiers dead if we had actually attacked the mainland. We should drop some on the radical middle eastern countries and save even more soldiers lives!