did we really need to drop nukes on japan?

Question

i think about this when i walk around my town and see all the people and kids going about their every day lives. then i think what it would be like if in a matter of seconds their lives where ended. i think that was the biggest act of terrorism i that has happend. lots of innocent people died.

maybe so but i think their is a big difference in the death of someone in the military and the death of someone takeing their kid to school. one has a means to defend themselves and one is just a target.

Answer 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Please read about OPERATION DOWNFALL, the allied plan to invade the Japanese home islands in 1945.

Millions upon millions of Americans, Australians, English, Dutch, New Zealanders, Canadians, and all other allies would have died to take those islands.

Dropping those two atomic bombs was an ugly necessity to save the lives of the good guys.

Answer 2

People say terrorism so loosely these days its ridiculous. If you scare someone, you're a terrorist. Its all the same...you're giving someone terror. Therefore, you're a terrorist. Thats the general feeling I get now, whether it be from someone like you or the president of the US. It no longer, to me, means someone blowing something up. In fact, the Americans in the American Revolution were terrorists.

Dropping bombs on Japan was not necessary. But think about this: Approximatley 100,000 Americans and 2 Million Japanese would have been killed if the US decided to invade. The war would have lasted longer than a few more months...it would have gone into the 50's most likely. Not tom mention that Communism was spreading so the US would have also still gone against Korea, stilling losing about 57,000 Americans. Think about all of the loss of life involved if the US hadn't dropped the bombs. about 300,000 Japanese died in the attacks and the war ended....VS...upwards of 2 Million and a prolonged war.

Answer 3

If you die from a bullet or from an atomic bomb you are still dead. The side effects from burns (such as from the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, London, or many, many other cities) are just as horrible as radiation sickness. It was a weapon in America's arsenal at the time, and the leadership decided to use it. Other, even more horrible weapons might have been used in a Home Island invasion; gas warfare was contemplated against cave fighters, since neither Japan nor American had signed the Geneva Protocol

Had we had the power to end the war in a moment, and decided not to, might that not be immoral too? My father served on a US submarine during the war, and most of the ships sunk as part of the blockade of Japan were merchant vessels. Japan would have been left starving with untold civilian casulties. Resources would have been diverted to the military - who knows how many would have died.

The decision was made no doubt to conserve allied lives, but the vast majority of the Japanese people were better off for it too. For more reading, see articles on the projected invasion of Japan.

Answer 4

I could wish that we hadn't used nukes, but what did they know about its long term effects? Very little. In order to force the war to a swift conclusion, the brass thought they needed a big action (probably right--not my field of study). Otherwise it could have gone on in piddling little skirmishes, steadily bleeding away the strength of both countries. So maybe not nukes, but something big and effective was needed--I can understand that part, at least.
My father has always said it saved his father's life: my grandfather was in Hawai'i, soon to be shipped further east. Then the bombs were dropped and he could stay where he was. Same would apply to anyone with orders to the Pacific Theater.

I don't think it falls into terrorism, however. There was an official declared war on, after all, and as they say, "All's fair in love & war."
The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Wikipedia has this to say: "As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible."
While bombing 2 cities may appear to fit the latter somewhat, the use of the threat of nuclear attack came a little later, and was not the intent at the time. While it could have happened, the big nuclear face-off was pretty much between us the USSR, and you rarely hear of smaller, non-nuclear countries being threatened with it. (They may have FELT threatened, but I feel threatened when a semi is in the next lane, too)

Answer 5

I would ask "did they need to drop TWO nukes on Japan?". I can understand the argument that dropping a nuke may have saved lives but dropping two bombs, three days apart, was overkill. Literally.

Terrorism? If terrorism is defined as attacking civilians with the intention to cause mass panic then I suppose it was. A nuke is not a discriminating weapon that can be aimed at military units only. A person who attacks soldiers is not a terrorist; a person who attacks civilians is.

Fortunately, and incredibly, over 60 years has gone by without a nuclear weapon being used, and the US is still the only country to have used such a weapon of mass destruction (admittedly with UK collusion). Who'd place bets on the next country being the US again?

Answer 6

The problem with Japan is that it's people firmly believed that divine providence would prevent a country from ever invading it. The reason being that twice invading navies/armies had been decimated by freak storms that destroyed them before landing. The cost in lives that would have been consumed trying to invade Japan would have been astronomical, for both sides. Every major city in Japan would have had to have been assaulted through by land, and if you're curious what that does to a city, go take a look at Stalingrad, which was reduced to rubble during the WW2(same world war where Hiroshima was bombed). It's horrible to think that the long-term cost in human lives was drastically reduced by dropping atomic bombs in Japan, but it's true.

Answer 7

Need is a strange term. The point was to end the conflict while saving the most lives, obviously a preference was given to the Allies lives but in the end, more Japanese were saved. If we had invaded the main islands of Japan, there is a very good chance that there would be a bloodbath in which the Japanese people would fight to the end and millions would have been killed. In truth, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people and did wider destruction (20 square miles) than the atomic bombs. It's good you ponder these questions. If more people did, maybe we wouldn't repeatedly be going to war. >>PEACE<<

Answer 8

I find it interesting that the only country I have heard of using massive nuclear bombs (weapons of mass destruction as the US likes to call them when others have them).. was the USA. Yes, there have been others (such as Russia, etc) that built up massive arsenals of them, but the only one that I can think of that actually dropped them right in cities.. was the USA....

I find it interesting that one person made a remark that they got what they deserved because the attacked Pearl Harbor.. Would that person feel the same way if Iraq had turned around and blew up a couple of US cities? Surely not.

Obviously I was not around when the decisions were made and don't know exactly what they were all thinking about it when they chose to do it.. BUT I do find it surprising that the US of all places would retaliate by targeting civilians .. Couldn't then just have attacked major military installations?

I don't know.. As I said.. I find it interesting the country that tries to suggest they should rid the world of weapons of mass destruction is the one major one that has used the biggest ones!

Answer 9

Well many acts of violence have occurred. Yes, the United States dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan. If you think about it though, the world has also experienced genocide (i.e. Rwanda, the Holocaust) as well as "great purges done by the government (like Soviet Russia along with a few other countries). Lot of innocent people die, a LOT, and all the time. If people stopped being assholes and acted a bit more diplomatically, we would all be better off, yes?

Answer 10

I believe that their are a lot of rich Americans who would like to end the spending and economic loss in the Iraq war.
It will only be a shot time when it is not the terriorists who drop and A bomb on America as everyone is afraid of.
I think they will drop a bomb or carry it by truck or their own plane and nuke the middle east. It would stop the war and end it for good that place will be a ghost town for the next 2000 years. One in Saudi Arabia, afganistan , pakistan and Iran and Iraq and probably lebannon. There is to many private people who say that is a good idea.

Answer 11

Reading some of your answers it leads me to believe that more people are thinking that war should be ended quickly and decisively and with as less American lives as possible.
With the growing fear of the Islamic peoples and their constant threats and the government and private industry seeing no way out basically backed into a corner it is inevidible that one day a plane will fly over Iraq and iran and drop a nuclear bomb. Probably Afganistan also.
It is as sure as anything you know that is the end of this situation. They are just waiting for them to do another terriorist attack and then boom.
doesn't the same rational apply this this war.