should the allies dropped a atomic bomb on japan?

Question

i need help with it for history class thank you very much if u help

Answer 1

Definetely not. The atomic bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only a tactics to shorten the length of the war. Japan sooner or later would lose the war anyway, because the Axis Power had already been destroyed, they had to continue the battle all by him self without one single allies against one vast and powerful allies. This event was also considered as a prelude and opening move to the Cold War. The US wanted to display to USSR the impact of atomic weapon if they dropped it from the air to two inhabited cities. But, the point is that people have to look at the victims of the bombing, it's innocient people that were dying from radio active waste for god sake! If they want to extreminate Japanese military base used a normal bomb or 'unextraordinary' weapon and shot it only in the target thay they were aimed for. They do not need to bomb the entire city and inflicted other hundred thousands innocent people and civilians who didn't even meddle with the war. In spite of this, I have to admit it that this incident however was a huge advantage to the allies and country that was being occupied by Japan throughout the war. Indonesia and Vietnam for instance, they promptly declared their independence weeks after they realized that the Japanese were retreating.

Answer 2

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. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 3

I think that they thought it was the only solution to end the war at the time. It DID save many lives that would have been lost if the war had continued. BUT - it was a horrible decision to have to make - there is always a "moral dilemma" in these situations. It must have been a difficult decision to make - the use of these horrible weapons caused unimaginable death and destruction on a scale that was never before seen. And it was (as it always is) the civilian populations that paid the heavy price. I think there are many - now - who do not realize the full consequences of using these weapons - I think that we all pray - that they will NEVER be used again - although, man seldom seems to remember his history - in some ways - so we may be "doomed" to repeat it! I certainly would pray that our leaders are more intelligent than that (but ...?....).

There were obviously a lot of different things to consider in making such a decision to drop the bomb, but in the face of what the "Nazi agenda" was doing to the world - it was probably the only decision that could be made. It was the right thing in the face of the depravity that the world was dealing with - desperate times and desperate measures to combat an evil that almost defies comprehension. - but was a harsh reality!

Answer 4

It was not an easy decision. The bomb had been tested in New Mexico, so President Truman knew the power of such a weapon.

He also had casualty estimates for both sides, pertaining to the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. Based on this information he opted for using atomic weapons, and arguably, saved lives on both sides by doing so.

Some have suggested that a demonstration of the bomb visible to the Japanese government may have been sufficient to end the war. It's certainly debatable, but there's a very strong case for the decision Truman made.

Answer 5

They already did in 1945. It was actually the U.S. that decided they should use the atomic bombs in order to make Japan surrender. Despite the deadly consenquences, Truman didn't want to send any more of his men over to Japan just to be killed in the end.

When the frist atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Aug. 6, 1945, the U.S. expected to get a message that Japan would surrender, but didn't. Three days later, the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki. With many men, women and children dead, Japan surrendered. But for the survivors of the bomb, they had radiation effects that was quite dangerous for them and their next generation.

Answer 6

The Allies didn't drop the bombs, the US did.

Yes. It brought Japan to its knees and left them with no otter choice but to surrender. The alternative was to invade the Japanese mainland. It is estimated that 1-2 million soldiers and civilians would have perished (some estimates were as high as 10 million). That plus the financial costs would have been enormous with the operation and rebuilding. By comparison, 200,000 total died in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More died in the firebombing, using conventional weapons, in Tokyo.

Also, the Soviet Union was preparing to also invade the Japanese mainland. This would have caused the same problems that existed in Eastern Europe following WW2, with the Soviets oppressing even more people.

Prior to the invention of nuclear weapons, the number of people who died yearly from war was increasing at a hyperbolic rate. After the dropping of the atomic bombs, this number dropped to about 1 million people a year has remained fairly stagnant since then.

In conclusion, the dropping of the bombs saved lives, saved money, kept the Soviets from oppressing the Japanese, and is still minimizing the number of people who die yearly from wars.

Answer 7

Any act of indiscriminate bombing whether it be conventional or nuclear is forbidden by G.C. which we as signatories must abide by unless we petition the UN to be released from this act by the General Assembly! We attacked massive numbers of civilian populace both women and children,and seniors which were not engaged in military activities. Truman traded civilian lives for military lives.Something he had no right to do! Ask those children if he made the right decision!

Answer 8

No. Look at how many more people died needlessly. Now many generations are now suffering from radiation and the enviornment is also suffering. The atomic bomb is bs!

Answer 9

It appears that history is not your main problem in school.

Answer 10

Yes, more people ( Japanese and Americans ) would have died if the bombs had not been used.