Should the US have dropped the atomic bomb to end WWII?

Question

tell me what you think

Answer 1

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself.

Answer 2

The short answer is yes, the US did the right thing by dropping two atomic weapons on Japan.

The Japanese weren't going to surrender unless it was conclusively proven that they were beaten. This could have been accomplished either by landing our troops in Japan and accepting the cost of 1,000,000 American casualties, or by using a weapon that would conclusively demonstrate the complete defeat of the Japanese. The use of the bombs on Japan served to make the Japanese government and military know they were beaten.

As a side note, while the use of the bombs were an abomination, war itself is an abomination too. The employment of the bombs ended a terrible war in such a way to save not only American lives, but Japanese lives too.

Answer 3

Yes, no real question about it. Despite all the "politically correct" thinking about this out there, this was the one way to effectively put an immediate end to the war. Our only other option at the time was invasion of the home islands. The mindset of the japanese before the bomb was dropped was similar to the insurgants in Iraq now, only to a much greater degree. We would have lost hundreds of thousands of troops, some estimates at the time were on the order of 1 million. And that was a very realistic estimate..

Answer 4

Yes and no. There was no need as all the Russian forces were brought from Europe to Far East and were overhelming the Japanese. But I suppose if the Russians would get into Japan, - not much of Japan would be left. So the atomic bombs actually saved Japan from the Russian invasion by forcing the Japanese leaders of that time to make a quick decision to capitulate to the Americans.

Answer 5

President Truman believed that america could both could invade the jap mainland, and go in the course of the inability of a minimum of one million infantrymen, in the different case drop atomic bombs and stress resign. the determination became made now to not settle for a million more suitable casualties, yet to emphasise resign on Japan with atomic bombs.

Answer 6

Yes. In the end it actually save alot more lives than it took. If we did not drop the atomic bombs, the US would have to invaded Japan to end the war and that would have increased the casualities on both sides.

Answer 7

I am amazed at you yanks limited military intelligence.
1/ It wasn't just you who were going to invade the Jap land.

2/ The Japs only surrendered to the coward MacArthur who gave up the Philippines so he could escape, because he had the president in his pocket because the president made him a 5 asahoe General to out rank all of the allied generals.

Many of the allies were still there in '48 when you guys had thought you had won.

Answer 8

yes. belevie it or not this was the most humain option. the other two were a full-scale invasion, which would have resulted in at least 500000 allied deaths, and probably millions of japanese civilians, because they were told to fight to the death. the second option was to use a blockade to starve an already starving country, which again would have caused widespeard famine and many more japenese deaths.

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

Yes, and on that point, it is fairly easy to drill through glass to get to oil!