What forced USA to throw Atomic Bombs at Japan? Should we condem it now?

Answer 1

It actually saved more lives then it took. if we had to invade japan like we did Germany, there would have been much more death and destruction the the bombs ever did, and to make it clear we also killed many more Japanese with the conventional bombs, their cities were made of mostly wood and a regular bombing run started entire cities on fire. the ease and speed of the atomic bombs combined with the lack of material support finally made the Japanese realize they could not win the war. AND APOLOGIZE? PLEASE! YOU HAVE TO BE A LIBERAL! THEY STARTED THAT ONE! lol

Answer 2

The main reason the UNited States used Atomic bombs on Japan during WWII was the main reason any nation, group, or person will often do something drastic - fear. Fear will cause people to do all kinds of things that in hindsight are clearly stupid, wrong or immoral. The US feared what would happen to their soldiers if they had to invade Japan to end the war - probably tens of thousands of dead American soldiers. There was even some concern about the number of Japanese civilian and military deaths, which may have been over a million, because the Japanese said they would fight to the death. So, these fears drove the US to do something that may have been immoral. However, to condemn a lack of foresight under duress is wrong -- would you condemn a man who killed an attacker to defend his family? I hope not.

I think we should condemn acts of war in general. Because while perhaps the US should not have used the atomic bombs, the Japanese should not have done many of the things they did, including massacring hundreds of thousands of Chinese, starving and marching to death thousands of allied POWs, and invading numerous countries and islands in the Pacific. Both sides did these awful things because that is what happens in war. Nations fear for their safety enough that it becomes an "its either us or them" mentality. And when then happens, all bets are off, and the worst side of humanity comes out.

Now - just a little food for thought: Imagine a world in which no one knew the true horrors caused by nuclear weapons - but in which the US and USSR still stockpiled thousands of these weapons. Would it have been more likely that a global nuclear war would have happened between 1950 and 1990? I think it might have. So we need to honor those killed and wounded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because through their suffering, the world learned that such weapons should not used again. In that way, billions owe a strange debt to the US and Japan for showing us this horror, and thus helping to avoid a worse one later on.

Answer 3

Condem it all you like. It isn't going to change a darn thing - the people still died, and cities were still destroyed.

The reason was that Japan wasn't going to surrender. The people were being told to continue the fight, even though the high-ups had already agreed to the surrender. They were attacking soldiers and not listening to the fact that the war was done. They were being told that their deaths were going to honor the leaders, and that they should die before they gave in. Sounds like a huge contradiction, doesn't it? But in Japanese culture, they would have continued, believing that the surrender was nothing more than propaganda from the enemy. It had to be done to prove that they had truly lost the war. It was also done to prove to the Japanese that we truly had the atomic bomb, and had won.

At least this is how it is explained to me. Well, my version is more symplistic - my husband is a history professor, his emphasis on WWI and WWII. If you want the long, drawn out and technical version of the answer, let me know. I will hook ya up.

Answer 4

The experience at Iwo Jima led planning officials to conclude that the population of Japan was prepared to fight to the last breath. The invasion was calculated to cost no less than one MILLION US casualties, and untold numbers of Japanese military and civilian casualties.

It seemed that even if nuclear weapons didn't cause the surrender, they wouldn't increase the ultimate Japanese casualty count, but might reduce our own some.

As it turns out, not only were countless American lives saved by inducing the surrender because of using nuclear weapons, countless Japanese were spared as well. At least five times as many Japanese would have died had the US been forced to invade.

No, I don't think there's anything to condemn or apologize for.

An additional note for the person who suggested we demonstrate a nuclear weapon for them:
One, they probably wouldn't have agreed to send anyone important enough that they would believe the reports of what they saw and surrender. You have to bear in mind that the very reason we dropped the second one is because they did not believe the reports they got from their own people of the massive devastation the first caused.

Two, we couldn't afford to "test" one. We only had two working nuclear weapons at that time. Had they not surrendered after the second bombing, we'd have been forced to go with the invasion, and in that case, I would probably agree that dropping the bombs would have been pointless. A good gamble, but pointless in the end.

Answer 5

Japan had sworn to fight to the death ( at the time Japanese though surrender was not honorable) My father was on one of the troop carriers getting ready for a D-Day type landing in the bay of Tokyo. In an effort to bring the war to an end and to keep American casualties to a minimum it was decided to send the Enola Gay with the first bomb. It was also thought that the surrender would soon follow...but that did not happen so the second bomb was dropped. After Nagasaki the emperor surrendered. My father said it save many American soldiers from death, including him.
It is easy to condemn when it is NOT your life on the line or you did not live in that time.

Answer 6

The US DECIDED to drop not htow the A-bomb. I my personal opion this was one of the best war time decisions in US history because it ended a World War. We should not ever think to condem something that was done for the good of the country. If we had not dropped it, there might have been another Pearl Harbor. These men who dropped the bomb from the Engola Gay were brave men who risked their lives to do this.

Answer 7

I think a lot of the answers you've gotten are quite naive. There were other choices then nuke them or invade in order to end the war.

We could have demonstrated the weapon for the Japanese and threatened them. We could have negotiated peace as the Japanese had in fact wanted to. We could have blockaded them and starved them into surrendering. We could have fire bombed every city, as we had already done to several.

There were lots of ways to end the war, other than dropping two atomic bombs on two of their cities. Some of those would have undoubtedly cost more in terms of human lives and suffering, some wouldn't.

However, nuking them did force unconditional surrender, and allowed us to quickly occupy and set up a new gov't as we dictated, as well as quickly start helping them rebuild.

There are positive and negative consequences to each of the actions. I think just saying we shouldn't have done it is too simplistic. There were and are many factors to consider.

Bottom line, I don't think we should condemn it. It was total war back then and the US used an awesome new weapon to end the war quickly. The ramifications of nuclear war and nuclear policy were not known then, as they are now. I think it's unfair to judge the USA by today's standards and knowledge, given the conditions then.

Answer 8

The government did a study on the planned invasion of the Japanese homeland to study the losses that would be involved on both sides. They determined that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan would result on many less casualties on both sides than if the US invaded the Japanese Homeland.
Whether you agree with the nukes or not, the bombings have already happened. There's nothing that can be done about it now. Condemning them now would only waste your breath.

Answer 9

Did you ever hear of Pearl Harbor. You know when the Japanese navy bombed our fleet while we were still at peace. If Japan would have surrendered before we wouldn't have dropped it but they were gearing up for an invasion that would have cost millions of lives on both sides instead of just the one hundred to two hundred thousand that died because of our two bombs. And hell no we shouldn't condemn in now we should celebrate it. Finally, a president got it right.

Answer 10

We had them and we had a choice. Either risk loosing massive amounts of military lives trying to attack the Japanese homeland and having to kill probably a million or so Japanese people in the process. We opted to use the A-Bombs to show the Japanese that they may be willing to loose their lives in an attempt to win but they would only be loosing their lives for nothing.

The argument was made and accepted that it was better to destroy those two cities and their populations rather than destroy every city in Japan and their populations. Also, no American lives would be lost at all.

Argue all you wish, it worked.

.