what were some of the alternatives for using the atomic bomb against japan? do you think any of thses alternatives would have been better than the actions taken? tell me why or why not.
2007-03-01 15:30:26 · 13 answers · asked by LoVeLY LaURa 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
i know it was probably the best choice, but what were some others that the military might have gone with if they hadnt used the bomb
2007-03-01 16:35:40 · update #1
there were none that would have worked. Japanese soldiers died with honor. They were not to return home with failure. It would be disgrace upon the entire household. Our soldiers would have been mowed down trying to storm the island. Also, Japanese soldiers were trained in guerrilla warfare, which consisted of hit and run tactics. We wouldn't be able to keep up with it. The atomic bomb saved more lives than any other solution would have done. Its not as bad as it sounds.
2007-03-01 15:49:59 · answer #1 · answered by dannyboy788 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One alternative that was considered, and planned for, was a massive invasion of the Japanese mainland. This would have necessarily caused many more casualties, both civilian and military, than the war ending bombs.
An estimated 62 Million people were killed in WWII - it was high time to put an end to this tragedy.
2007-03-01 15:41:30 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were plans to do an assault on the island of Japan with ground forces.
I do not think this would have worked better, it has been calculated with Japanese fight to the last man tactics that more people would have died on both sides, involving more civillian casualties than the atomic bombs caused.
2007-03-01 15:39:50 · answer #3 · answered by heavy_cow 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
invade japan and lose 100,000 of our soldiers in the process plus hundreds of thousands more japanese dead than the atomic bombs killed, so i think atomic bombs was the best alternative as sad as it was. those figures are based on military estimates by the way, keep in mind they could have been made up
2007-03-01 15:47:29 · answer #4 · answered by ak 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fighting every man woman and child in Japan to take the islands inch by inch at the cost of millions of Japanese lives and hundreds of thousands of Allied lives. Probably would have double the length of WWII.
2007-03-01 15:43:17 · answer #5 · answered by LX V 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the only other alternative was operation downfall. The Allied Invasion of the japanese home islands.
Expected American casualties- 500,000
Expected Jap casualties- 1 million+ (stats taken from history channel)
unless you wanted more americans dead...the A-bomb was the best route
2007-03-01 16:05:06 · answer #6 · answered by Bill 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was known t at the time in diplomatic circles that Japan had made several surrender proposals through the Swedish diplomats but they had the condition of immunity for the emperor these were rejected because of our demand of unconditional surrender. although after the two atomic blasts and they did surrender unconditionally the emperor was protected from prosecution.
2007-03-01 15:46:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Japan started the war with the USA.
To invade Japan would have cost at LEAST one American service man's life.
Nuking Japan cost none.
End of discussion.
2007-03-01 17:16:01 · answer #8 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Plans were made at the time to invade mainland Japan. They made Purple Hearts then for expected casualties and the wounded. They made so many that we are still using the surplus today. We should try it again in my opinion.
2007-03-01 15:57:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
None.
1) Japan refused to surrender.
2) Using nuclear bombs saved Japanese lives and American lives.
2007-03-01 15:36:41 · answer #10 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋