Should we have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII?

Question

Detailed answers please.

Since i'm doing a debate it would be nice to do both sides and the the banal answers please heard'm all. Against dropping bomb would be better

We attacked two cities because japan wouldn't give up the first time. Whether we waited long enough is another question

Better answers please. There were other options to dropping the bomb like naval blockade or using the bomb as a negotiation tactic.

We didn't have to invade the mainland. Other options would be nice.

btw i believe it was the right thing to do to drop the bomb

Answer 1

Yes

Answer 2

Ok, personally I believe it was necessary but you need "No" arguments, so here goes.

Dropping the bombs on Japan exposed to the entire world the power of nuclear technology. Most of the world wasn't ready for it and still isn't, but once the capabilities were proven the Soviet Union pursued it doggedly. Eventually, this led and is still leading to nuclear proliferation. The United States, as the only nation ever to use a nuclear weapon in warfare, has a diminished moral standing in the international community when it comes to negotiating non-proliferation. The leaders of Iran and N. Korea use this argument today.

Another point is that the 2nd bomb was unnecessary. Sure, it sped up Japan's surrender, but probably only by a matter of days. We got an "unconditional" surrender but perhaps sparing 60,000 lives would be worth a few concessions.

Thirdly, this was not a military attack. Dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians is terrorism. While Japan may not have always abided by the laws of war in asia, not once had they attacked American civilians. How can we invalidate the position of terrorists today after all the civilians we targeted in Japan?

Oh, by the way, those bombs were not the deadliest attacks in the war. Look at the allied bombing of Dresen, Germany. More civilians died there than in the A-Bomb drops.

Answer 3

The decision, while not an easy one, was made to drop the bombs twice on Japan because of the savings in American lives. You probably already know that a planned invasion of Japan would have cost the US over 1 million American lives. Seem to me that this is an unacceptable loss. But when you consider the number of troops landing in Japan or order to lose one million people, you would have to land nearly 8 million troops. Thats a lot of people.
So rather than put more Americans at risk, the decision was made to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, then Nagasaki.
Personally, I believe that while the death toll is exceedingly high, it was Japan that attacked the US and provoked war. Therefore, Japan has to be willing to risk whatever the cost. Its like if you don't want punched in the nose, don't swing first. If you start a fight, you must be prepared for the casualties. I don't think that anyone actually knew how much devastation the bomb would cause. Regardless of the number of tests or calculations.
So, yes, I believe that dropping the bomb was the right thing. It was the goal to shock Japan into ending the war and to save American lives.
Yes, its a horrible loss of life, but just think, if there was an invasion of Japan and one of your ancesters was there and died, you would not be here to ask that question.

Answer 4

Depends on your view of what is right and wrong in war.

If we had not used the bomb it is likely that the war would have gone on longer than it did, how much longer is open to debate. Certainly both sides would have suffered additional casualties. The Allies would have lost many men during the invasion and Japanese civilians would be subjected to increasingly heavy fire bombing raids, which had already caused terrible losses. Also in the time it would have taken to mount an invasion of the Japanese home islands it is very possible the Soviet Union would have been able to grab a significant portion of Japanese territory which would have put them in a much stronger strategic position in the Pacific.

I will not attempt to make a moral judgement about this 60 plus years after the fact, but I do remember the words of my father who served in the British army during WW2. He had been in the army for 5 years when the Germans surrendered and having survived all of this he was told his unit would be transferred to the Pacific to participate in the invasion of Japan. He was always thankful that the Americans ended the war before this happened.

To judge this event you have to see it through the eyes of those who were there at time.

In response to your raising of the issue of the blockade. First is starving an entire nation a more humane approach than bombing them? Secondly, most of the Japanese merchant fleet had already been destroyed so a blockade does not improve the Allied position. Thirdly, a blockade takes time allowing the Soviets to move in as noted above.

Answer 5

Yes, of course we should.

Your problem with trying to find an argument the other way is that :-

(1) All the bad outcomes of dropping the bomb are still with us and keep being talked about, sixty years later. But

(2) All the bad outcomes of not dropping the bomb were only best guesses sixty years ago, and they don't look the same to us today as they did to the people who had to decide about them then. But those people were there, and they made the best guesses they could. It's not fair on them to pretend that we can see things better now - we actually see them worse, because so much time has passed, facts are less obvious, and our standards of relative importance have shifted.

Answer 6

If we had not dropped the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki the japanese war machine probably would have beaten us and we would be speaking japanese at this moment.After the war we built japan back for them and they are beating us financially.Keep in mind that the american POWs captured by the japanese were treated very badly,for every 1 prisoner the germans killed the japanese killed 7,they loved to torture our guys,their favorite method was to sodomize an american GI with their bayonets.The cars we drive today especially mitsubishi made japanese fighters and bombers during WWII.Read some history on the war and see just how they fought the war.My grandfather was in the navy and fought many battles in the pacific theater and seen many kamikaze planes go down and many buddies killed because of the planes that attacked them.I have developed a real attitude toward them for grampaws sake and all the fallen GI's the japs killed or murdered.Very ruthless and inhumane people.

Answer 7

President Truman believed that the United States would either have to invade the Japanese mainland, and suffer the loss of at least one million soldiers, or else drop atomic bombs and force surrender. The decision was made NOT to accept a million more casualties, but to force surrender on Japan with atomic bombs.

Answer 8

AGAINST (not that I believe it) The bomb killed hundreds of civilians and inflected lasting damage on the survivors. It also left a radioactive legacy at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that is still being felt today. No cleanup can be complete.

AGAINST The bomb ushered in a nuclear age we could well do without. The arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union and has forced governments to let their people suffer from poor conditions in order for them to have the money to build a bomb. Every third world country out there wants the bomb so the US has to take them seriously.

FOR: Dropping the bomb saved thousands of American and Japanese lives. Without that act, America would have had to physically invade Japan and fight door to door. That invasion and the subsequent loss of life was stopped by the dropping of two bombs on two targets. Hundreds died, but not thousands.

Answer 9

Since unconditional surrender was our position, dropping the bombs made perfect sense. It would be more productive to argue over the overall idea of strategic bombing. The firebomb/high explosive mix was much more destructive than those two devices. The invasion of the mainland would have been worse, as well, and it's hard to imagine how a slow starvation while simultaneously allowing the Soviets free rein in Manchuria would have wound up as well.

Answer 10

Good side(US) we saved Japanese lives because they were suicidal cause they'd rather jump off a cliff than surrender we gave the Japanese the reason to surrenderand we saved our butts

Bad We killed people(inocent) and make two cities unlivable for a VERY long time