Dropping the A-Bombs On Japan: justified or not?

Question

Japan's defense minister just resigned for suggesting that dropping the bombs was the only way US could end the war and it saved Japanese lives and territory (Russia invasion was imminent). I tend to agree with him (even though his view is not popular in Japan). Revisionist historians have suggested that the war could have been ended without dropping the A-Bombs. All I know is that my Dad and a lot of other soldiers were preparing to invade Japan, and they fully expected it to be a blood bath. Thank God for Truman! He saved a lot of lives and gave the world a first class demonstration of the horrors of nuclear weapons.

Answer 1

As horrible as dropping a nuclear bomb was, it did save the Japanese people untold death and misery.

One must remember that in 1945, the atomic bomb was just a big bomb.

We today, having a history of the nuclear arms race and the decades of fearing a pending worldwide destruction, have a different perspective. American leaders in 1945 did not understand that this technology could lead to doom....it was just a big bomb that could destroy a small city and after all, we were dropping millions of bombs and destroying many cities.

The Soviet threat was very real. We had allied with the USSR to defeat Fascism...but we understood that they were a dangerous ally. We had helped Stalin complete his Trans-Siberian railroad and he had millions of soldiers and tanks and guns that he was moving to "help us" fight Japan with.....hoping to further expand Communist totalitarianism and probably jump into the Chinese war helping Mao as well.

Also, while we were bombing Japan at will after defeating the Japanese Navy and air defenses, we had not even engaged with the main force of the Imperial Army, who had a couple of million well-armed and experienced soldiers on the ground in China. So there was a large, veteran and fanatical Army of at least two million men who we had not even fought yet and who would have gotten to Japan to defend their country even if they had to get there on bamboo rafts. This is not to mention the Army and civilians who would have fought a ground invasion with whatever they had. Just this threat could have easily cost a million Japanese lives and probably a half million allies lives and would have lasted two more years.

Yes, the bomb was horrible, but in the long run it was also humane and prudent, saving millions of lives and saving Japan from decades of brutal Communist totalitarianism.

Answer 2

People then and now have been discussing this subject for year and will do for many years and I really don't think a bunch of people on yahoo answer will be able to come up with a answer XD and I think you would be better off looking into the facts rather then asking other peoples opinions as everyone is biased. But heres some things to consider when justifying it - did it hasten the end of the war or was it other factors eg fall of Okinawa, fall of Germany, The mass bombing (remember the firebombing of tokyo killed more people then the Hiroshima bomb) the lack of supplies and the fact Russia had entered the war and the peace faction led by Shigenori Togo. Then consider the alternatives what if the US had initiated operation downfall (look it up) what if Russia invaded (look how the Russians fought and how the Japanese fought) what would it been like? what about the effects of Blockades. There is no right answer though when i had to do a several thousand word essay on the subject I believed that it was justified as a necessary evil.

Answer 3

As an Asian American, I am compelled by two sides of this argument. The horrors faced by the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were unimaginable. There are accounts of survivors with horrible radiation burns, long-term disabilities and health-threats. Also, the ecological nightmare left in the wake of the bombings spell out a cost on the Japanese people that was quite horrible.

Yet, knowing the losses of battles such as Iwo Jima, where masses of humans were gunned down, mustard gassed, or bombed out, and thinking about mainland Japan fighting, where the casualty numbers would have amounted to the hundreds of thousands on both sides, perhaps the A-Bomb was a quick solution that saved lives. I know that Truman wrestled with the moral dilemma of unleashing such a powerful force. Additionally, we have seen the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the frightening prospects of a nuclear Apocalypse during the Cold War. However, in all, I think in the context of the situation in the Pacific Theatre of WWII, Truman and the Allied Commanders made the correct decision to end the war.

Answer 4

We could have ended the war without dropping the bombs, but why argue about it? It would have cost us hundreds of thousands of lives, the Japanes would have fared FAR worse and I believe that having hoards of REALLY pissed-off Marines occupying their nation would have been far more devastating and humiliating then loosing those two cities. Given that Japan attacked the US without provocation, conducted brutal, unconstrained warfare and then prepared every citizen to fight to the death, dropping the bomb was a logical and even humane choice. I would also love to point out that there was plenty of opportunity for Japan to surrender long before the Enola Gay launched. Better yet, they should have stayed away from Pearl in the first place. They held all the cards but it turns out we weren't bluffing.

Answer 5

This question is frequently asked here on Yahoo Answers.
I have to respond by asking - just how many Japanese ask themselves if they were justified for invading China, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, India, Philippines, and Malaysia?
The civilian and military deaths as a result of the Japanese invasions in those countries run higher than the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. I think it is fair to remember all those who died in Asia as a result of the Japanese aggression - and it is fair if the Japanese asked themselves if they were justified in what they did from 1931 - 1945.

Answer 6

These revisionists are operating in the woulda coulda shoulda school of thought, which serves little purpose.

I truly can not say whether or not it was justified, because I wasn't there. Many believe we could have ended the war differently, many say dropping the bomb was the only way.

All I know is that the war is over and Japan is a free country.

Answer 7

Japan was not willing to surrender. Even dropping the Atomic bomb didn't change that. At the time the Emperor wanted to surrender to save his people, because of that several Generals tried to take over the forbidden city and convince the Emperor not to surrender. Everything is 20 20 in hindsight. I believe what happened was the right thing. There is no point speculating what if.

Answer 8

I hate war
I hate bombs
so its hard to say this but,
in the last just war,
where there was clearly a psychopath aggressor in Hitler,
and attack on US soil in Hawaii,
and the reality of millions of lives to be lost on a Japanese invasion,'
the answer appears clearly YES- in those extreme circumstances, Truman did the right thing.


If only all our aggressive acts since had been for such clear cut, just and reasoned ends.................not over power,creating fear to sell more weapons worldwide, oil, large rebuilding contracts or paranoia ............

Answer 9

Nope!.try imagining, being called from bed in the morning of Aug. 6, 1945 at 8:14am by your mom, together with your brothers and sisters, to eat breakfast. you only got a minute before the bomb pops. a blinding flash, horrible wind, and heat of the sun., the energy generated by the blast was more than all the firebombing combined. when the wind reached the mountains it reversed back again.to the center of the city. 200,000 dead including you, your brothers and sisters, by the end of 1945 were reported in the city of Hiroshima. Given a million possibilities, I'm sure there is one, just one better way to end the war. If the effort to build the bomb was also exerted in finding ways of ending the war without using atomic bomb.

Answer 10

Using those bombs was not materially different from any other strategic bombing during the war. One could argue about the entire concept, but it wasn't until Desert Storm that the technology for pinpoint precision was available, so they used what they had. Hard to argue with that.