I think it was. The projected number of people killed for an invasion of Japanese mainland was 1 million American soldiers and probably up to 10 million Japanese. The A-bomb ended the war more quickly with less casualties.
2007-04-10 12:52:51 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
It was justified. They sprang a cowardly sneak attack without a "man to man" declaration of war, ( and there supposed to believe in Honor, yeah f'in right) and it was over mostly scrap metal and other supplies that had been re directed to england russia and france to help them, which left the Japs with a low supply of needed raw and manufactured goods.
Then take into consideration their war crimes, tortures that were just as cruel as germany, but Japan did it to Koreans, Chineese, Philipino's, POW's ect.
Just wish we would have hit them with a few more, and we should have never gave any reparations period.
2007-04-10 13:35:20 · answer #1 · answered by pyledriver 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I feel it was justified......
We warned Japanese officials about the bomb and invited some over to watch us detonate one so they could see its massive power......
In the long run it saved American and Japanese lives. It brought the long cruel war to an end.
It may be sad to say if the war is brought to the people and they have to suffer then a country may have to give in.
Examples....United States and Vietnam. I know people are saying huh, what, no connection....Well here is my point! The Viet Cong knew they couldn't compete with our country's military. We were to strong(technology and weapon wise), well funded, etc..... So they drag the war on with guerilla warfare. The people at home, U.S. populas, were becoming tired and upset about the war; it dragging on, the deaths of American soldiers, the cost of it, etc.....(It seems like another war that is going on).
Another example of bringing war to the people in U.S. History is the civil war. Sherman made the statement "War is hell"
He made the south howl. His thought was if you effect the everyday common folk they will complain to the government and want to bring an end to the conflict. The people will lose the will to support the effort.
So the atomic bomb may have done this to the people of Japan.
Of Course after the dropping of the bomb was the nuclear build up between nations, and one we see today with two nations in mind: North Korea and Iran.
But with this said imagine all the other technologies that have been brought to us through this build up, well I should clarify military build ups and arms races.
Computers were used for government use, now they are in every home. Internet Depeartment of defense use...now a day doesn't go by where we aren't obsessed with checking our emails. Things like instant coffee were brought on through war efforts
2007-04-10 20:01:43 · answer #2 · answered by Eric S 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋
The winners write history. I agree with you about the casualties, but I wish we had invaded. I really don't think the Japanese accept the reality of the fact that they surrendered, and if we had invaded, destroying their beliefs in their supremacy and racial superiority, the world would be a better place today. We needed to kill those 10 to 12 million more.
2007-04-10 20:01:37 · answer #3 · answered by BANANA 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Look at it this way:
Since we dropped the two atomic weapons in 1945, no other atomic or hydrogen bombs have been employed in warfare. Had we not used Fat Man and Little Boy, weapons such as these, and no doubt more powerful, probably would have been used in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam or somewhere by US or someone. But the world experienced and realized the wrath of such weapons, and that has been the biggest deterrent against their use.
And, yes, these weapons did bring the end of the worst war in history.
It was the right decision by far.
2007-04-10 19:59:43 · answer #4 · answered by Wego The Dog 5 · 5⤊ 7⤋
I'm with ya boy. War is all about killin', pure and simple. Sometimes a big body count brings things to a swift conclusion, and by doing so, actually saves lives in the long run!
2007-04-10 19:56:54 · answer #5 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋
It ended the war, didn't it? Lives lost on both sides afterward were to the absolute minimum.
In every war innocents die, just as they are in Iraq today. Collateral damage can only be controlled so much.
2007-04-10 20:02:31 · answer #6 · answered by Guitarpicker 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
no. You may have had more casualties with a long war, but they would have (more than less) been the deaths of soldiers who chose to die, not civilians, men women and children. War is for those who choose to be in it.
2007-04-10 19:58:46 · answer #7 · answered by smith 2 · 7⤊ 6⤋
You bet it was. I answered two question like this recently, so if you feel a need to fill the vast emptiness in this answer, feel free to look at those.
2007-04-10 22:32:16 · answer #8 · answered by John 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Yes, for the reasons you stated.
2007-04-10 20:06:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Yes it was. Wego pretty much hit the nail on the head.
2007-04-10 20:31:19 · answer #10 · answered by MajorTom © 6 · 4⤊ 7⤋