English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Would we still have to deal with nuclear weapons in that decade or would we have dealt with it at a later time?

2007-02-14 13:34:53 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

12 answers

Could you imagine the capturing of Iwo Jima on an entire Japan scale? The death toll on both sides, specially on the Japan, would have been horrendous. The Yanks might also have never invested in the reconstruction of Japan after the war because an "inch by inch" battle for the entire Japan would appeared vile and tragic for the waste in human lives. I wish Japan could have surrendered months in advance and the bomb would not have been used. That would have been a good case. But the bomb forced the failing Japanese empire to make a quick decision that likely saved millions of lives.

If the bomb was not used to end the war over the Pacific in 1944, it may have resulted in it being used in the Korean War in 1952-53. It was horror of the destruction of the atomic bombs in 1944 that persuaded some people that the bomb was a weapon only of last resort. The world may have been very different if the Korean War was ended in 1953 instead of an Armistice, which exists today. Korea would have been united, presumably, under Western influence and eventual free democratic society as South Korea is today. There would be no massive labor camps in the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (DPRK also known as "North Korea" which is neither democratic nor a replublic and definitely not for it's people.)

2007-02-14 21:36:21 · answer #1 · answered by Kitiany 5 · 0 0

If we hadn't dropped the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, many, many more people would have died on BOTH sides AFTER the U.S. invaded Japan and the war would have gone on for a much longer time. We warned them to GET OUT OF THE CITY..and they didn't pay attention.

2007-02-14 21:49:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

not really differnt, because japan was under embargo, us had stopped all supplies to japan before Peal Harbor, and that was needed by the japanese, but by the time A-bomb was dropped Tokyo was already burning, and japan lost generations of people, and nomore money, yes they did have colonies to supply, and oil from dutch east indies, but not enugh, so the change would be just the date of peace treaty in your history book. (remember, napalm killed more people than the A-bomb.)

now if you are talking about no single bomb in the mainand of japan, then japan whould be in the war for 10 more years.

other factors, Russia, they did start makeing nukes, but they made it in 1949, after german scientist whent to russia, they managed to make. yes they did declear war on japan overthrowing japan-soviet non aggression pact of 1941, which was illegal, but soviets didnt care, but the reason for this was because US dropped the first A-bomb and Germany had surrendered. so.... its debateable

2007-02-15 02:08:50 · answer #3 · answered by cb450t 3 · 0 0

We would have several million less people in the world. We would still have mad men and fanatics to deal with over nuclear weapons, religion, human rights, or ------------. We would still have morons that are misguided and will believe anything. In other words, they will fall for anything because they stand for nothing. They have opinions on everything based on the way they feel, not based on facts or groups of proven ways and means.

2007-02-14 21:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0 0

the reason Truman decided to drop the bomb, the U.S. generals gave their estimate on the suspected U.S. casualties if we invaded (original plan) and he decided to give them talks to surrender basically by saying we have a crazy weapon of destruction, which they didn't believe. We tried to warn them 2 times before we dropped the first, they were in a state of panic after that and some Japanese officials wanted to surrender but they had lost control over the Japanese militants (surrender to them was dishonor)

2007-02-14 21:40:12 · answer #5 · answered by Evil Man 2 · 1 0

An estimated at least 60,000 American troops killed and probably even twice more Japanese.

In some ways as bad as it was, it was good they used it then and seeing the awful devastation it caused, rather than waiting until the Soviet Union had it in their hands, and as Einstein put it the war after the third world war will be fought with sticks ( if we are lucky that is!!!)

2007-02-14 21:55:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

How would the world be if Japan hadn't been so schizophrenic and destroyed Pear Harbor. you need to read your history book.

2007-02-18 12:06:57 · answer #7 · answered by duc602 7 · 0 0

world war 2 would have cost hundreds of thousands of more lives.....Invading Japan would have been the most troops America has ever lost.

2007-02-14 22:05:01 · answer #8 · answered by raminrobert 2 · 1 0

still deal with it, russia by that time had already started their plans for nuclear weapons.

2007-02-14 21:38:14 · answer #9 · answered by PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL TEEN! 4 · 1 0

For starters, a lot of us would not be here. Our fathers or grandfathers would have died during the invasion of Japan.

2007-02-14 21:38:19 · answer #10 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers