Should the U.S. have used the atomic bomb on Japan? Why?

Question

Its a debate question in class.

Answer 1

If you mean the Hiroshima bomb, then yes. The alternative would have been an invasion that might have cost a million allied lives, and perhaps twenty times that in Japanese lives. The Japanese had reserved its remaining kamikaze aircraft, as well as suicide speedboats for the invasion, and the carnage (witnessed in smaller form off Okinawa) would have been horrid. US, British and Commonwealth forces (I don't know if the Soviets would have participated) would have had to shoot down schoolgirls carrying bamboo spears.

If you mean Nagasaki as well, then no. The Japanese should have been given more than a couple of days to make up their minds -- they could do us no further harm, after all -- and, while Hiroshima was headquarters for the southern command, Nagasaki was traditionally the most westernized city in the home islands, and no more of a military target than any other city.

Answer 2

The second answer looks good in part - many people on both sides would be killed if we invaded and was there a chance of surrender?
But this claim is so incredibly stupid that it spoils the credibility of the person posting it. This has never been mentioned by any responsible source. - "Test an atomic bomb"? give me a break.
"Did you know that about the same time of Hiroshima the Japanese tested an atomic bomb, successfully, near North Korea? What would have happened if the end of the war had been delayed a month? "

Answer 3

The classic argument was that yes, they should have because invading Japan in an army assault would have led to tens of thousands of American dead, and would have just prolonged the war. To end, the bomb had to be used.

However, the Japanese had already asked the USSR about terms for surrendering, so they were already in the mood to end the war, so was it really necessary?

Did you know that about the same time of Hiroshima the Japanese tested an atomic bomb, successfully, near North Korea? What would have happened if the end of the war had been delayed a month?

Answer 4

at the time for the U.S. to invade Japan it was estimated ther ewould be a loss of over a million American lives lost in order to take main land Japan and then to occupy the island. The military did the math and figured the loss to Japanese life would only be in the thousands. They were right. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war in the Pacific.

Answer 5

Yes.

The dropping of the two atomic bombs saved many American lives by canceling the invasion of the Japanese home islands, helped bring the war to a quick end, intimidated the Soviet Union from further expansion, and usher in the age of atomic power.

There were more Japanese killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, yet the Japanese did not surrender. So dropping a revolutionary type of bomb had to be done to make the Japanese give up.

The idea of one bomb one city was revolutionary because it usually took thousands of bombs with hundreds of missions with dozens of killed American flyers or captured just to destroy one enemy city. With the new atomic bomb you just flew one mission endangering only one crew and destroyed an enemy city with just one bomb - it was an amazing feat of warfare.

Dropping the atom bombs on Japan basically saved millions of Japanese and American lives when it cancelled the planned invasion of Japan.

Answer 6

Yes. It saved both American lives and Japanese lives for the same reason: Japanese civilians were being trained to fight with spears minuteman style in anticipation of the invasion. And the counter-argument, that "japan was about to surrender" is false. Two atomic bombs fell. Japan was ordered to surrender before the first bombing and again before the second bombing. Both times they refused.

Answer 7

well did know if we first send Amy would 100% death raid one in frist wave my couiss on be in had we not -bomd he would have die
Truman was quickly briefed on the Manhattan Project and authorized use of atomic weapons against the Japanese in August of 1945, after the Japanese Empire rejected the Potsdam Declaration. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first, and so far the only, use of nuclear warfare. The bombings were quickly followed by the surrender of Japan and the end of World War II. The decision to use nuclear weapons was, on a political level, not controversial at the time, either in the U.S. or among its allies. (At the Potsdam Conference, Stalin was also aware of Truman having the A-bomb.)[33][34][35] In the years since the bombings, however, questions about Truman's choice have become more pointed. Supporters of Truman's decision to use the bomb argue that it saved hundreds of thousands of lives over what an invasion of mainland Japan would have cost. Eleanor Roosevelt spoke in support of this view when she said, in 1954, that Truman had "made the only decision he could," and that the bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."[36] Others, such as the atomic bomb historian Professor Gar Alperovitz, have argued that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary and inherently immoral.


[edit] Strikes and economic upheaval
The end of World War II was followed in the United States by uneasy and contentious conversion back to a peacetime economy. The President was faced with a sudden renewal of labor-management conflicts that had lain dormant during the war years, severe shortages in housing and consumer products, and widespread dissatisfaction with inflation, which at one point hit six percent in a single month.[37] In this polarized environment, a wave of destabilizing strikes in major industries played out, and Truman's response to them was seen as generally ineffective.[37] In the spring of 1946, a national railway strike — unprecedented in the nation's history — brought virtually all passenger and freight lines to a halt. The country literally ground to a standstill for over a month. When the railway workers turned down a proposed settlement, Truman announced that he would seize control of the railways and even threatened to draft striking workers into the armed forces.[38] While delivering a speech before Congress requesting authority for this plan, Truman received word that the strike had been settled on his terms.[38] He announced this development to Congress on the spot and received a tumultuous ovation that was replayed for weeks on newsreels. Although the resolution of the crippling railway strike made for stirring political theater, it actually cost Truman politically: his proposed solution was seen by many as high-handed, and labor voters, already wary of Truman's handling of workers' issues, were deeply alienated.[37]

Answer 8

too bad louis is wrong. the reason we dropped 2 bombs on heiroshima and nagasuacki was not for payback for pearl harbor. Even though it was the reason we joined the war. Japan attacked us and was planing it again and we had word that they had all their troops set up on Heiro and naga. So we told japan to come out to sea on one of the ships to sign a peace treaty. Japan refused to do this declaring war on us so we droped bombs in order to save the lives of thousands! of u.s. infantry (ground) soldiers.

Answer 9

Yes. Payback for all the murdering they did.