should America dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki?

Answer 1

Probably not, but the American public, the Asian allies, and the US Navy were asking for total surrender. Truman and his advisors wanted to crush any and all partisan resistance when the US invaded and set up camp. They also wanted blood, especially those who had served in the Phillipines and China.

It was a terrible thing to do, but it worked. Hindsight is 20/20 and none of us know how we would have felt had we been on the Bataan Death March, or Midway.

Answer 2

~Well, let's think about this:

Curtis LeMay himself said (if we lost the war) he would have been tried for war crimes for the fire bombing of Tokyo, which did more damage than either Fat Man or Little Boy, and killed far more civilians, so we'll start from the premise that the winner writes the rules.

Fermi wasn't sure the reaction from detonation could be contained. When the world didn't blow up after Hiroshima and Model A, we had to see if Nagasaki and Model B would do the trick. Anyhow, the boys with the brass, home safe in the Pentagon, wanted to compare the two types (they were totally different bombs, remember)

Oppenheimer insisted at least one, if not both, be used so he could justify the time and money that went into the project (the war consequences were, at best, secondary to him - he was worried about his place in history and in the world of physics)

We did NOT drop the bombs to convince the Japanese of anything. They were beaten. They had no navy, their air force was all but gone and the only pilots left were being trained as Kamikazis, so they only had one flight each to fly. Replacement planes were non-existent because all raw materials had been cut off when Tojo was pushed back to Honshu and the allied navy established the embargo of the motherland. Not only was the end a simple matter of waiting and starving out the few remaining gound troops that were left, but as was proven time and again, no target on the islands was out of reach of LeMay's bombers, launched from Okinawa, China and carriers which could have operated from Tokyo Bay.

The sole reason for dropping the first bomb was to let Joe Stalin and Mao know we had developed it. The sole reason for dropping the second one was to let them know we had more. By the time Berlin fell, we were getting ready for the next war and it was pretty clear who that would be with.

As to the history whiz kids out there that think the US was going to lose hundreds of thousands of troops in an invasion of the home islands, bear in mind that US losses in both theaters, Europe and the Pacific, amounted to fewer than 350,000 (as compared to 10 MILLION Soviet military dead). Yeah, some people would have died in a invasion - wars tend to do that to people. The thing is, no invasion would have been necessary. Read YOUR history, apply a little common sense and think about SANE military strategy.

Of course, MacArthur would have insisted on invading. He needed paybacks for the Philippines and his bruised ego, after all. Harry Truman might have had to fire him a little sooner, but Nimitz would have pervailed.

What we did accomplish by using both (or either) bomb was to earn the wrath and contempt of the entire world and the casualties are still being born today. How many generations will pass before the unborn innocent victims finally shed the mutations caused by the blast.

And to those that say the Japanese had it coming, maybe you should read up on why Pearl was attacked in the first place. To call it unprovoked goes beyond ignorance and the only reason it was a "surprise" attack is that the message from Tokyo was not decoded and delivered in time. Washington knew and attack was coming, and continued to engage in the actions that provoked it right up until December 7. The only things they weren't sure of were the date, place and time. Interestingly, only about 20 civilians died at Pearl, as compared to the 210,000 or so at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (including radiation deaths over the next year or so), not to mention another 75,000 or so at Tokyo.

That being said, of course we should have dropped the second bomb. Hey, Saddam got out of line and look what we did to him. Afghanistan did nothing and look what we did there. We refused to allow the elections promised to Viet Nam in '54, and look what we did there. Diem got uppity and where did he end up? It's the American way - just ask Red Cloud.

And we wonder why people would want to land airplanes in skyscrapers?

Answer 3

Umm, the Japanes didn't surrender after the first bomb, and netiher did the Emperor. The final bomb on Nagasaki forced the Emperor to want peace, even though the generals still wanted to fight. The Japanese were given adequate warning before the first bomb was dropped, but they ignored it as a hollow threat. If the second bomb was never dropped, Japan wouldn't of surrendered

Answer 4

It depends on one's point of view...

Yes - they had to set the tone for the new world order and bring a brutally conclusive end to teh war.

No - it was a cynical move used to flex political muscle and test new technologies.

This is a moral question which has to be examined in a wider historical and geo-political context ... there's not "black and white" answer to it .. but it kind of sucked.

Interestingly, the 2 largest concentrations of christians in Japan at the time were in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... I have no idea if that is coincidence or not!!

Answer 5

I agree with the prevailing notion that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been far more devastating to both sides.
The second bombing definitely closed the book on any continued Japanese resistance.& saved lives of allied forces even by shortening the war a few days.
So in retrospect , yes.
The japanese were given an ultimatum & it cost them by not surrendering immediately.
( there is a lot more to it than that)
I also think there was an element of revenge in dropping the second bomb
Might have been payback for the Japanese campaign of brutality in China, the Philipines & throughout the Pacific.
Dont think the Brits lost much sleep over the Dresden bombing which some think was un-necessary also.
They had been at war with Germany, twice, so maybe some payback came into that decision also.

Answer 6

It probably was necessary.

After the Hiroshima blast, the Japanese were given the chance to surrender. They didn't. The government claimed America only had one such bomb, and the worst was over.

After the second blast, even the Emperor realized the proverbial jig was up.

It's never an easy decision to send 100,000 people to their deaths with one action, but President Truman acted in his country's best interests by moving to shorten the war this way. An invasion of Japan would have been a far worse option.

Answer 7

hindsight is a wonderful thing - the world has moved on so much since those times - in answer to your question, at the time it probably appeared to be the right thing. If the same scenario where to happen today, like a previous response, they shouldn't have dropped the first one.

There are plenty of things that have happened in history that shouldn't have happened.

Slavery

Allowing Hitler to do what he did

Mao Tse Tung's hold over China

Ida Amin's slaughter of thousands

The list is endless. We should learn by these dreadful happenings and hope that they are never repeated.

Answer 8

Yes, Up until the second bombing Japan was still intent on fighting.

once they perceived we had more of those weapons readily available they capitulated.

the effect of the second bombing was equally as psychological as it was strategic.

an argument could even be made that if the second bombing had not happened as soon as it had, the first bombing could have enraged the Japanese and made them more determined to fight. but that's is highly debatable.

ADD ON: to any one who says "they should not have dropped the first one" or "The Japanese had already lost."

Please for the love of all that is good and right please open a history book.

Learn something about the Japanese warrior culture.

Learn about the war and don't use today's mentality to determine what is right and wrong.

Yes by today's standards the weapons used were horrible, but the alternative was an estimated 1 million allied casualties in taking the Japanese home islands, and an estimated 3-5 million Japanese casualties!

My god do you people really think that losing millions of lives is better than the course of action that was taken?

People who have no comprehension of the events should not be making judgment calls on them.

Answer 9

Let's not forget who wanted the war and who attacked first, without warning. The plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki may not have been necessary militarily, but it did send a message to the Japanese people and other potentially waring nations to think very carefully before embarking on this very evil activity.

Answer 10

No, I personally think that Japan would have gotten the point with Hiroshima. Those bombs killed so many innocent people and ruined the lives of their descendants with the stuff passed on from A-bomb exposure.