do u agree of dropping the atomic bomb on the japan?if yes why?

Answer 1

I believe that President Truman weighed the pros and cons of that decision correctly... If the atomic bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the Japanese would've defended their homeland to the last man; causing massive amounts of casualties on both sides...

The dropping of the two atomic bombs finally convinced Emperor Hirohito that the war was unwinable, and that surrender with honour was much more favourable than annihilation....

So, yes, I believe that the right decision was made....

Answer 2

I was 7 yrs old when the bombs were dropped. I didn't really know anything about it at the time. I do remember the celebrations that it was finally over.

I have since learned that the dropping of the atomic bomb did save many lives although it took many as well. Not as many as the incendiary bombs that rained down on Japan almost constantly toward the end killed.

A little know fact is that Japan exploded their own atomic bomb during the time between the last bomb dropped and the surrender. Japan was only a few months behind the US when they were forced to surrender. Even then the US had many ships just outside Tokyo harbor because the US felt it could be a trap to kill many US troops.

was the dropping necessary? that will be debated for a long time. Although Japan lost the battle, they won the war...if you don't believe so, how many of you out there own Japanese products of one kind or another?

Answer 3

probable Why - via fact the only different option on the time became an invasion of Japan. the probabilities of Japan triumphing the conflict became slender to none, yet they'd not resign/negotiate. the techniques on the time have been - a million. Invade Japan and lose 100K's of Allied squaddies (ninety% American) and untold style of jap lives. 2. Drop this new bomb that no-one knew precisely what might ensue and attempt and stress Japan to provide up and a minimum of keep the allied forces from severe numbers of casualties. do no longer forget that the U. S. did a impressive style of above floor nuclear attempting out after the top of WWII, exposing their own squaddies to the radiation. i do no longer in all risk think of they knew what the outcomes have been going to be only before unleashing the nuclear genie. additionally, using the bomb bumped off all doubt approximately which u . s . a . became now the #a million superpower. It gave the U. S. a miles better place interior the positioned up WWII international.

Answer 4

Yes, it was necessary not to end the war with Japan, but to demonstrate the force of nuclear weapons to all over the world.
Japan was ready to accept the Potsdam Declaration by the end of July 1945, and actually expressed its readiness. Detail records of the GOJ talks over the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration are left today. I don't know if they are available in English or not.

The U.S. needed to prolong the war until the two different types of A-bombs (uranium type and plutonium type) were "tested" on Aug 6 (Hiroshima) and Aug 9 (Nagasaki). Otherwise, there may never be a "chance" to actually drop them on human residential area (not in a no-man desert in New Mexico).

The U.S. was right. Since then, no nuclear weapons have been used. The whole world knows its catastrophic force and its dreadful consequences.

Yes, it was necessary to demonstrate the force of the bombs to prevent the world from using them again. Had the bombs not dropped on Japan, they could have been dropped on China (during the Korean war as Gen. MacArthur said) or on Vietnam.

Answer 5

Totally agree. Look at how hard it was taking Okinawa and that was just one little island. If we had to invade the Japanese mainland, something NO ONE has ever successfully done, it would have cost millions of lives. Japan had ample opportunity to surrender before the first bomb, several days before the second bomb and did not. The bombs brought a rather quick ending to the war. It was only a matter of luck however, that they surrendered after two, because that is all the USA had.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. This was an unconscionable action by (untried war criminal) President Harry Truman, and, sadly, an entire field of historical scholarship supports his decision as "necessary to prevent the loss of a million American lives."

Read Howard Zinn (cited below). Zinn cites scholarship to support a claim for the reason of the bombing, a claim that sounds absolutely plausible to me: The US wanted strategic & economic control of Japan and knew that the USSR wnated it too. The reason the US dropped the bomb was so that Japan would surrender to the US, rather than to the USSR. The US was worried that if it didn't act immediately, Japan would be lost to the Soviet Bloc.

Naturally, this reasoning doesn't justify the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Nothing can justify the wholesale slaughter of innocents. And those who say, "Well, it ended the war," subscribe to the weak position that "the end justifies the means."

Answer 7

Yes it conservatively saved thousands of lives believe it or not on both sides. The US was getting ready to invade Japan. The fight would have been more horrific than the two bombs that we dropped.

PS: The Japaneese also needed to be paid back for Pearl Harbor. There is an old saying " fighting is not nice....so why fight nice".

Answer 8

Unforunately a necessary action to end a war that promised to kill many tens of thousands more Americans if we continued fighting and invaded Tokoyo by sea. USSR was also invading Japan from the north which could have led to many more concessions by the USA to Stalin if he was allowed to defeat Japan.

Answer 9

I think the only people truly qualified to participate in answering this question are the soldiers and marines who would have been asked to invade Japan in the alternative.

I'll defer to those who's lives were in the balance of the equation.

Answer 10

no i dont and think how many innocent people died not only that who was the culprit for dropping the bomb in thefirst place ermm the u.s. whos theculprit in iraq us and britain strange that think of any other outbreaks of war how many times have the us and britain been involved and yes im british