wut is your opinion in Nuclear Bombs which were thrown on Japan in 1945?

Question

remember that Japan destroyed Pearl Harbor and the nuclear bombs were the reason to end the war.

Answer 1

I think that had I been President Truman, and when told that it is expected that the cost of invading Japan may be a million American lives, that I would also bomb Japan rather the land troops.

This bombing did not go without warning. Truman sent messages to Hirohito nearly begging the Japanese to surrender, they were warned that the United States would release a horrifying weapon unless they surrender. Japan knew a good 7 days before Hiroshima, had 3 days before Nagasaki, then another 6 days of debate before Japanese leadership decided to surrender.

Germany had already surrendered and the Summer was fading into fall which would mean a winter campaign. It was time to end the war. The Gremans had suffered enough that they were done with war for along time, the Japanese had not, they were still willing to fight on.

And as far as why didn't we bomb Germany? Germany surrendered in April 1945, the bomds were not even ready until June of 1945.

Answer 2

I see it as a Evil thing that was used for a Good reason. If we were going to invade the Japanese homeland. The Japanese were going to do whatever it takes to kill Americans even if the entire race was killed off. Second they had to end the war. The allies of Europe were going broke from the war. If the war would have gone on The nations of Europe would become like Africa. Then their were worse things. Remember The bombing of Dresden? Lots more people died and a lot more painful. You will understand when someone uses a vacuum to suck all the air out of your lungs. Also more people died in Tokyo during the American fire bombings then both bombs did. Just because one bomb dose a lot of damage does not mean it killed the most and also most died instantly and probably felt nothing how fast it happen

Answer 3

It is hard or improper to use todays philosophy on what happened more than 60 years ago, so, when you consider what would have happened had we not dropped the bombs, I would say that they did the right thing. How many more thousands of people would have died, had we not dropped them? How much longer would the war have gone on? When you think about it, you may not have been born, had the war continued. After all, like todays war, the standards are being lowered to ensure that the number of military keeps its strength up. Who knows, maybe your grandfather or great grandfather may have been called to war, and died on the battlefield. Think about it.

Answer 4

Japan was given plenty of warning to surrender, or they'd face the worst consequences. They refused. The atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. They were asked again to surrender, they refused, even in the face of what they had seen. The atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. They finally came around to our way of thinking, and the war ended. Millions of casualties were avoided by not having to invade mainland Japan.

So yes, the bombs ended World War II. And it was a righteous act to drop them.

Answer 5

Well, Pearl Harbour is not a great argument: the US has attacked Iraq on false pretences but I hardly think that excuses a nuclear counter attack.

Having said that, I totally support Truman's decision to drop the bombs.

The Japanese showed no morality in their treatment of their enemies: none whatsoever. The Japanese nation, like Germany, allowed a militaristic fascist government to take power- they had the direct choice between a progessive government that embraced the world, and the angry, belligerent regime that took power progressively during the late 1930s.

Their troops raped and looted their way across Asia- so I see no reason why the Allies should have extended sympathy to Japan and allowed hundreds of thousands of Allied troops to be killed in an invasion of the home islands- and that is what would have happened with utter certainty. Uniquely in history, Japanese troops fought to the last man and the last bullet- and on Okinawa the civilians did likewise.

Even today the Japanese nation denies its evil in WW2- just recently the Japanese Government has sought to deny it forced many thousands of women into indentured prostitution for their 'glorious' army. This is partly the fault of the West: after 1945 we allowed the Japanese to pretend that the Emperor- who is the human incarnation of God- did not know about the atrocities. So unlike Germany, there was never a full-and-frank facing up to the consequences of the nation's aggression.

In August 1945 there were only two A-bombs in existence- so a 'demonstration blast'- suggested by some- would have used up half the available weapons, and history showed two were needed! Also, it might not have worked- it was new and little-understood technology.

I would like to conclude by saying I don;t think Japan is an evil nation: it is a minority of bigots who, out of misplaced jingoistic nationalism, seek to distort Japan's history, and ensure the younger generation never learn about what went on between 1937 and 1945. And there's a lesson in THAT for many Western countries today.

Answer 6

I think the aforementioned bombs saved lives by ending the war sooner than if the U.S. had invaded Japan.

Answer 7

I think the bombs were the best choice that Roosevelt could have made unless you wanted the US soldiers the be massacred by the Japanese

Answer 8

Yes, it saved countless more lives and destruction on Japanese soil. Conserative estimates were 1,000,000 Japanese dead, and that's not all soldiers.
Second, the US didn't have an atomic bomb before Germany was defeated.

Answer 9

It cause the war to stop which save the live of many people that might die if the war continues.

Answer 10

THe first one was justified, THe second was questionable. I thought we should of gave them more time. WE didn't know better I doubt we should be accountable then.