about the atomic bomb that fell in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

i just what to know about the your opinion about the atomic bomb that fell in hiroshima and nagasaki

Answer 1

There were two atomic bombs. One "in" each city. Little Boy, a plutonium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Fat Man, a uranium device on Nagasaki. We had no choice but to use them, for it was the fastest and most humane way to end the war. Military invasion of Japan may have cost a million casualties.

Also, the use of these weapons showed the world their power, and they represent their own biggest deterrent. Had we not used them, we, or someone else would have in Korea, Vietnam, Europe or somewhere. Because of their use, none have been used in warfare since.

Answer 2

Fire Bombing in Tokyo killed more people than the two bombings combined. This is often overlooked simply because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with atomic bombs, it sounds more devestating simply due to the name.

Truman did what he felt was the best solution. Most of the Japanese populace in the south was likely to die in an invasion.

Answer 3

Truman made the right call. The objective of war, once you're involved, is to win. In addition, the secondary objectives are to win in the shortest amount of time and at the least cost to yourself. In total war, the idea is total mobilization of the country to achieve these objectives, including the development and use of any weapons or other technologies which give you an advantage over your opponent. WWII was a total war and the US used what was available in its arsenal to bring the war to a successful close as quickly and efficaciously as possible.

Had the Allies invaded Japan, casualties, both servicemen and civilians, would have been atrociously high. The estimate, as some have stated, is one million Allied casualties in addition to several million Japanese. This would also have prolonged the war for an extended, though unknown, period of time. In total war, the decision to invade, rather then using what was available in his arsenal, would have been an unacceptable and illogical move on the part of the Truman.

The level of suffering for the servicemen and civilians, had the invasion of Japan occurred, would have been disgustingly high. As distasteful as it sounds, dropping relatively weak, by today's standards, nuclear weapons on two medium-sized cities is more humane then laying waste to an entire country, as would have been necessary in the case of Japan.

Answer 4

It fell ON, not IN. However, my opinion is that President Truman made the right decision and in the process ended the war significantly sooner than if he did not order the use of the bomb. In the process, he saved thousands of lives, especially American and Japanese troops.

Chow!!

Answer 5

Those cities should not have been bombed at all, especially with an atomic bomb, since they had no military bases at that time. A-Bombs, H-bombs, and nukes should be illegal, due to the widespread destruction that they initially cause and due to the fact that they have long-lasting effects.

Answer 6

My opinion? We lost the moral high ground by using nukes, but like the guy said above, we killed more civilians in Germany and Japan from incendiary and carpet bombing attacks than the nukes. It appears that we saved may GI lives and kept Joe Stalin from making further inroads in the Orient.

Answer 7

The proposed invasion plan of mainland Japan projected hundreds of thousands of dead GIs and many million dead Japanese soldiers and civilians.

I think that destroying two cities is preferable to destroying an entire nation of people.

Answer 8

And, now, how about the real reasons? With the end of WWii looming, the psychopaths who "own " the planet needed a new source of enormous revenue--war is *always* profitable to the "elites". Hmmm. How about a "cold war"--just think of all the spending involved in (warding off?) "mutual assured destruction".

"The bomb", exoterically, scared Russia greatly--so it began "gearing up" to defend itself, etc.--50 yrs later, and $50 quadrillion dollars later, much of it flowing into the coffers of the likes of the bush crime family, and similar troglodytes, it became the turn of the middle east, etc.

War will never end so long as it (1) provides income to the terminally clueless who run the show, and (2) provides a convenient way to "curb" excess (in their eyes) population.

BTW, unlike decent , at least somewhat heart centered folks like you, and me, the "powers that be" couldn't care less how many lives were lost via an invasion. While hard to believe, the likes of the then versions of Kissinger, and the neo-cons, generally, etc really didn't care about anyone else but themselves--a sad truth, i assure you. :))