was the use of the atomic bomb nessesary or not?

Answer 1

God knew it would happen..

Answer 2

That is a question that has been , and will continue to be debated until end times. As a former Combat Marine, my opinion is: "yes it was necessary" - not for the horrible amount of damage that it inflicted upon the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, - that was a a terrible message that had to be sent - and those poor people paid a terrible price to save the lives of so many more of their countrymen.

Nuclear Weapons are vile, cowardly, evil weapons of mass destruction whose only real purpose was to serve as a deterrent to ever having to use them against a living, breathing, enemy. They were a stategic weapon, designed to show what kind of new power we could unleash upon our enemies, and that to defie us further would be madness, our scientists did not understand what our military leaders did - we were dealing with Madmen. What else would you call a Kamakaze Piolt?

One Detonation would certainly scare the hell out of an opposing force, but one detonation, would only persuade the Japanese that we had only enough resources and material and time to develope a single prototype, and - speaking in a soldiers venacular - "we just shot our wad" at Hiroshima. What was needed was the second detonation - with the promise that we had hundreds more ready to go, - that is what would stop the war, and that is what did stop the war. When the Hiroshima bomb was detonated, with even greated force that the Hiroshima Bomb, the japanese were Broken, and the war in the Eastern Theatre was for all practical purposes - over.. I do not recall the death toll from Hiroshima & Nagasaki, - becuase for atleast a gneration following, japanese children we still being born deformed, blined, radiation poisoned, - crippled,- etc,, but one can only guess at how many more lives would have been lost if the fightig had continued for another 5 years - on both sides, hoe many Japanese, Americans, Kiwis, Aussies, Brits, Canadians, Phillipinos, Germans, Italians, French - Ets would have died, if those two bombs had not been dropped? A Million, More? I know it sounds ridculous to use the phrase "For the Greater Good" in the same sentence with World War, (II), and Atomic Bomb - but I think it truely did).

Just on old Marines opinion. Thanks.

Answer 3

Depends. I do not think that such a new technology for the times could have predicted the longer lasting effects on humanity accurately.
Though on the other hand the immediate effects, I do not think were anywhere as terrible as the outcome of a conventional invasion. You would have to take a look at the outcome of the battles that took place on outlying Japanese islands to get an indicator as to the outcome of invading the main islands. The fighting would have been much more fiercely fought. The death tolls on both sides would have been greater. Even the civilians caught inside US lines would gone the direction many of their counterparts out on the outlying islands did. Committing suicide rather than accept defeat.
No I think that in comparison, between the immediate effects of the two atomic bombs, they seemed to be the lessor of two evils. Given that the technology was still too new, there was no other precedent to take into consideration for the longer term effects on humanity.
I think it was necessary as a precedent to take into consideration today. Otherwise we would have started dropping them on each other through the Cold War turning it into a super heated war and to what effect? The information gathered at Nagasaki and Hiroshima afterward are our best deterrents to the use of them.
To me the bomb is not really a deterrent. It is a tool of science and technology that shows that mankind has not progressed very far in all of written history. Sure we gain knowledge from all of this science and technology, but what do we really learn interacting with each other?

Answer 4

the Japanese would have been defeated at a terrible cost of American soldiers lives. This weapon of mass destruction was our way of telling the Japanese leaders that they either surrendered or were going to pay a terrible price. This did end the war sooner and it did save lives.

The only thing is once you use any weapon you have the responsibility that it will be used again. Just like when the Germans and the Allies used gas in WW1..but it was not used too much after that as this was outlawed. But I believe any means of mass destruction is evil and will be used if the wrong people are in power.

The United States still has the "BOMB" and so does several other countries. It is only a matter of time and this weapon of mass destruction will be used again. I just hope I am not around to see this as I would not want to see the results on the civilian population.

Answer 5

There are to many variables to give this an honest answer. Yes, it saved many lives, of American troops. There were at the time, over four million American men and women headed to Japan for the final plunge into hostile territory to stop the war. Japan had sworn to fight to the last child. Every boy and girl that could hold a weapon was trained to fight back.
Over 50% casualties were threatened with a landing of this type.
So, it was a matter of them or us. Our men, most of them, were already weary from four years of fighting across Europe and the South Pacific.
Maybe it was un-necessary and the end result was not the finality but, it brought my dad back after two years in Europe, he was headed for Japan. That's all I care about, I'm selfish.

Answer 6

it saved thousands if not millions of American lives. Japan was prepared for a long battle in their home land. To the extent where they trained their children as soldiers and prepared them to die (sound familiar). What the bomb did was end the war quicker with less casualties. It (they) accomplished this goal, so I say it was necessary.

Study your history and learn from it.

Answer 7

It ended hostilities with a fanatical force, didn't it? Sometimes you have to smack a mule between the eyes with a 2x4 just to get it's attention.

Answer 8

i don't think so. i also don't think war is necessary at all- i thought we choose adults to run our countries for a reason, so that we can deal with problems like adults (by talking it out) rather than children (by beating each other up). but obviously i'm an idiot for thinking this, me and the UN..

Answer 9

Yep

Answer 10

Yes and we need to do it again