were atomic strikes necessary primarily to avert an invasion of japan in November 1945?

Answer 1

I believe they were done as a way to claim superiority, which we did and to end the war against Japan, we were involved in a two front war, we needed to focus in one of them.

Answer 2

This was a very tough decision at the time; they had to pick one of three options: a) do not bomb Japan and wait for them to attack the US, b) demonstrate the atomic bombs power so they see if they do not surrender what would happen to them, or c) drop the bomb on them.

The reason why we didn't just wait it out is because there hasn't been an enemy war time attack on the US since the War of 1812. If we let them attack us first, that would be a since of weakness. There was a chance that if we demonstrated the atomic bomb to them, that the back up one would not explode when we attacked, as they were different types. It has to do with the chemical make up of the bomb, one of them was more unstable than the other. So the only thing left to do was to blow the buggers up, which we did - twice. Sure we destroyed thousands of people in two of Japans largest cities, but they ended up surrendering.

Answer 3

By late July of 45 the Japanese navy was destroyed. There were kamikaze attacks, but the bulk of the air force had also been destroyed. The USAF had complete control of the air, and reduced Tokyo by firebombing. The Japanese Army was mostly pinned down in China, unable to get itself to Japan (due to the abovementioned loss of the navy). The US submarine campaign against the Japanese merchant marine had destroyed it, so Japan was getting nothing it needed. It was, in other words, up **** creek without a paddle, and they knew it. The problem was admitting it to the public.
This was when "Give 'em Hell Harry" decided to prod them along with an overwhelming show of military might. This demonstration by the way was aimed just as much at the Soviet Union. Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were military targets - most of the military targets had already been destroyed. The explosions were an exercise in mass terror, but no more immoral than the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden (in another theater). In a way it was a logical (if awful) culmination of the demonic nature of the war.

Answer 4

The use of indiscriminate devices to kill hundreds of thousands of people is never necessary. Japan could have been defeated without invasion, through a navy and air blockade. It may have taken longer, but it would have worked. The use of TWO atomic bombs was done for efficiency to end the war quickly. If America and her allies would have been defeated, you can bet a charge of crimes against humanity would have been filed and Truman would have been found guilty, just as Saddam was. Victors write the history, a war crime is none the lessor of a crime if our side committed it in the pursuit of victory.

The only reason this was not done to Iraq is simple, there are far to many countries who can hit back.

Peace

Answer 5

The rationale for the two atomic bombs was that they would avert the death of millions of soldiers, sailors, and aviators on both sides. There wasn't that much risk of a Japanese invasion at the time they were dropped, because the U.S. was winning the war in the Pacific. However, the prediction was that it would drag on and on for many months if not years if the bombs were not dropped.

Answer 6

The advancing US fleets were still subjected to constant kamakazi attacks, loss were mounting in ships and a after the lessons learnt on Okinanwa on the resolve and will of the Japanese, the atomic bombs was necessary to shorten the war which could had cost lots more casualties on both sides and a suicidal civilian population.

Answer 7

First of all it was in August of 1945 and that is also the month the Japanese surrendered. Yes, they were necessary to AVOID invading Japan. They would not give up and the costs would have been far too great.

Answer 8

And the loss of at least a million more servicemen and more Japanese civilians, including children, who were indoctrinated to fight to the death, yes.