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

Include reasons to use the bombs and not to use the bombs.

2007-02-26 12:53:39 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

17 answers

Absolutely justified.

This is a lengthy debate these days, with 20/20 Hindsite.

Here are the reasons - at the TIME not to use the Atomic Bombs:
1: ...Um....well....Hm.

Here are the reasons at the TIME to use the Atomic Bombs:
0: We were at war. They were the enemy.
1: We were invading the Japanese homeland - they fought ferociously on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and both military and civilian casualties were unbelievably high for the Japanese - and for the Americans (On Iwo, we lost over 4,000, the Japanese over 22,000). Projected casualties of an invasion of Japan were over 1,000,000 dead Japanese and 100,000 dead Americans. The combined casualties at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were under 250,000 even by the highest estimates including long-term effects of radiation.
2: Civilians were dying at the rate of 200,000 a MONTH at the end of the war. Ending it faster was by far better.
3: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets and their loss hurt the Japanese war effort if we had to continue the fight.
4: Destroying those two cities would hopefully keep us from destroying MORE cities via firebombing (over 100,000 Japanese dead from firebombing since February of that year)

If we could force a fast end to the war, everybody was better off.

NOW we know that the radiation was hideous and that the Japanese were looking to surrender before we dropped the bombs - The point is, they didn't. We gave them the chance. We gave them the chance after Hiroshima and they still didn't. Only after Nagasaki went up did they give up.
And note that had we done a conventional invasion into Japan, the countryside would've been annihilated from one end of Japan to the other, much like Iwo Jima.

There is one other advantage to our having used atomic weapons - NOW we know how horrible they are. No one knew at that time - And the not knowing quite likely would've lead to a full-scale atomic exchange years later with Russia. Instead, it was avoided with the spectres of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Hibakusha always before us.

Wikipedia does a fair job covering both sides of this debate - Link attached.

Orion

EDIT: No, Japan did not surrender twice. In fact, Tojo attempted a military coup to prevent anyone from surrendering after the Hiroshima bomb. Learn your history and back away from the conspiracy kool-aide.

2007-02-26 13:14:36 · answer #1 · answered by Orion 5 · 4 0

Obviously, using atomic bombs at anytime cannot be justified, but neither could Japan's surprise attacks on all her neighboring Asian countries and Pearl Harbor that killed thousands of Americans and crippled the US Navy. This is the insanity of war, entire nations committed to attacking each other. At the end of the Second World War, the United States and the Allies did not have many choices. In fact, in the desperate wartime situation of WWII, there really were no choices, other than win or lose and if you could win, do it as fast as possible, given the massive scale of the wartime effort. Today, we can hardly imagine, and really cannot imagine what it would be like for all of us to have to live through a time such as that. The United States could have continued fire bombing Japan into submission, since Japan was not interested in surrendering, but this would have continued increasing the massive death toll on the islands of Japan, probably equivalent or greater than using atomic weapons. Or we could have invaded Japan, but in that death match, that would have incurred massive deaths on both sides, so that wasn't a good idea either. Both of these options would have prolonged the war for months. If Truman authorized using the atomic weapons, which he did, the US would have a better chance of ending the war in the Pacific Theatre immediately, and then turn national attention to the European Theatre, where there is documentation that the Germans had been developing missiles and other new weapons, including nuclear weapons. The Germans were aware of nuclear power in the 1930s and the scientists that fled Germany and came to America warned the US government that Germany had this technology. That forced the US to also begin developing nuclear power and weapons. The US really had no choice in this matter. Either develop the technology before the Germans did, or risk being bombed with German atomic weaponry first. By ending the war in the Pacific immediately, the United States and the Allies were able to concentrate fully on ending the war in Europe, which also occurred the same year of 1945, after the surrender of Japan. So, by showing the Axis nations of Japan, Germany and Italy that the Allies had the upper hand, the United States and the Allies could end the war quickly and spare thousands and perhaps millions more deaths, and could prevent prolonging the war any longer, for months or even years.

And that's the end of World War II. Let's pray (or whatever it is you do -hope, pray, have faith, live in peace, etc...) that we don't have another world war.

So, just to answer your question, I think President Harry Truman was only justified in ending the war as quickly as possible, and that was accomplished, beginning with and using the only way to do that, and that was using atomic bombs against Japan.

As far as including reasons for and against, those reasons are all contained in the explanation above. It is important to emphasive that during World War II, there was a serious lack of reasoning other than survive or die.

2007-02-26 21:50:47 · answer #2 · answered by endpov 7 · 0 0

Yes, I do think it was a good option at the time - 1945.
Japan had been fighting a war of aggression in Asia since 1937. If you ignore this fact out the sympathy for the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then you are placing a higher value on the lives of the Japanese people than that of the Chinese people.
Japan invaded: China, Malaysia, Burma, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines with no intention to "liberate" these countries from the European colonial powers. To stop the Japanese by using conventional military weapons would have taken hundreds of thousands more lives in ALL of those places Japan controlled and the Japanese homeland. The devastation and loss of life in Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Emperor of Japan to accept unconditional surrender, and not try to retain any of the territory Japan occupied. To not use the bombs would have PROLONGED the war.

2007-02-26 21:17:56 · answer #3 · answered by WMD 7 · 2 0

Though it did kill a lot of innocent people, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was definitely the right strategical decision. The right moral decision? Maybe not, but this was the free world at stake and for the greater good of the world actions need to be taken to secure that goal. For help on issues like this I always use this quote below.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill

Also consider what would of happened if the United States invaded mainland Japan. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would perish in a long bloody fight that would only leave more Japanese civilians dead than both Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

2007-02-26 21:20:52 · answer #4 · answered by clayman 2 · 1 0

yes. harry s truman saved more lives by useing the bombs on japan. was the bombing of hiroshima and nagisaki a horrible thing? yes. but if truman had not used the bombs twice than the invasion of japan would have killed millions of soliders on both sides.the reason why two bombs were used is because even after one bomb was dropped japan still wanted to fight on. the reason why the bombs should never be used again is the sheer inhumanity of the bombs. i have seen the plans for invadeing japan and it was presumed the u.s could march thru beaches leveled by more atomic bombs. the body count wold have been astronomicly high just on the u.s milliatry side. beach clearing via atomic bombs is very scary.

2007-02-26 21:15:43 · answer #5 · answered by frank h 2 · 2 0

Unfortunately, yes. The only qualification was if the second one was needed. Conventional bombs caused scenes every bit as horrible in Europe. Dresden being a case in point. But the sheer power released in one blast was a decisive factor in making Japan decide to surrender instead of fighting it out.
Now under what conditions considering the prevalence of such weapons and the automated launch systems would detonating one today be justified is the bigger question. If somebody with one was facing an Invasion, and remembering Saddams fate, they would have no reason not to begin the Mutual Assured Destruction sequence by launching what they had at armed targets. The counter missiles would trigger the launch cycle in every armed country in the general direction of the launch and of the counter launch..

2007-02-26 21:17:25 · answer #6 · answered by U-98 6 · 2 0

Yes, but it was a different time back then and they did not know of the lasting efffects of radiation. By using the bomb they effectivly saved hundreds of thousands of US troops lives that they would of lost by trying to get a beachead secured on the main island of Japan (sort of like the Normady beach landing all over again). This was a completly new type of weapon system that pretty much assured obliteration of the enemy and could be safely dropped from high altitude where enemy flack guns could not reach.

Now if we knew then what we know now I do not think we would of used Atomic bombs...but then again, I'm not a WW2 strategist.

2007-02-26 20:59:54 · answer #7 · answered by whylekyotee2003 3 · 2 0

The first one on Hiroshima I believe was justified. I have my doubts on the second one dropped on Nagasaki. Many say the bombs don't discriminate between civilian and Military targets but wars usually never do. Japan was responsible for their share of civilian deaths too. Countries in this day and age typically try to avoid civilian casualties but the reality is that it can't always be avoided. Maybe Nagasaki could have been avoided. Maybe more time should have been given to Japan to soak in the reality of the first bomb on Hiroshima; maybe not. I'm just glad I didn't have to be in Truman's place to make that call.

2007-02-26 21:11:11 · answer #8 · answered by Mark A 3 · 2 1

He was not only justified, He was obligated to drop atomic bombs on Japan. He had to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and, by extension, the people of the United States.

Nowhere was it written that he had to protect the people of Japan.

2007-02-26 22:42:12 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

Yes I do think that President Truman was justified in using the atomic bombs to end World War II. During the Japanese occupation of China over 300,000 people died. How many died on the Bataan Deathmarch? How many would have died if we had actually invaded the home islands. The Japanese Army was training CIVILIANS to fight us. The death toll would have been catastrophic on both sides. Some historians estimate that over a million people on all sides would have perished if we invaded. Less than 300,000 people died when the bombs went off.

I say that they got what they deserved.

2007-02-26 21:07:11 · answer #10 · answered by darkhelmet29 2 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers