We dropped the A bombs on Japan to end the war and save tens of thousands of U.S. troop deaths from a Japan invasion. Was the U.S. wrong to do that? I say no.
2007-07-12 06:30:11 · 22 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I see I flushed out a few useful idiots who would rather have seen U.S. troops in body bags than dead Japanese. Jeez, now I know the Japanese leadership was as cute as little toys until we strengthened their resolve by fighting.
2007-07-12 08:28:48 · update #1
Not at all.
It also saved many Japanese lives, ultimately.
It was total war. They threw everything they had at us, and we responded in kind. They came looking for us. We just turned out to be superior weapons-builders, among other things.
If Truman had not dropped the bombs, then whoever became president after he was IMPEACHED for not doing it would have.
End of story.
2007-07-12 06:34:45 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We did what we had to do at the time. An invasion of Japan, I think, would have cost both sides more lives in the end, and would have taken more time, and funds that we didn't have. Even after dropping the bombs, and even after the Emperor recorded his radio message to the people, telling that the war was over, there were people in top positions that were trying to thwart that effort in the interest of continuing the war. The night before the message was to air, there was an effort at top levels in government and the military to stop the message from airing the next morning.
2007-07-12 07:01:07 · answer #2 · answered by Mike W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The japanese would have died in droves if we had been forced to invade the mainland. To die for the emperor and the homeland was an honorable thing. There are clear indications that invading the mainland would have cost many more soldiers and civillian lives than dropping the bomb did. Additionally, leaflets were dropped days before the bombs warning people to get out that something big was coming. The towns destroyed had significant military value and were not selected to maximize civillian losses. If that was the objective Tokyo would have been a better target. Our actions ended the war more rapidly and ultimately saved more lives than an invasion would have.
2007-07-12 06:58:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well dropping the A bomb on Japan probably saved my life. In 1945 my father was loading Marines onto his attack transport for the invasion. The Japanese had horded 100's of Kamikazes for a final attack on the transports of the invasion fleet. Since I was born in 1947 I am very glad that my dad never had to land those Marines.
2007-07-12 07:04:16 · answer #4 · answered by oldhippypaul 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Just like Japan would value it's troops over Americans lives. Thats the was war works.
2007-07-12 06:36:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are 2 straightforward flaws on your premise. a million) the supply for Congress to declare conflict is for the objective of beginning a conflict the place none exists. If "the different guy" starts off one, no such announcement is mandatory nor suitable. as an occasion, if Canada invades, wager what? we are at conflict with Canada and Congress desire no longer legislate to be sure if this actuality in actuality exists. it incredibly is optimal to the modern-day using fact SADDAM began a conflict in 1991 that replaced into in no way concluded till the 2003 invasion. (there is been a stability And help Operation on condition that then). 2) Congress DID declare conflict against Iraq. (redundantly, on condition that as consistent with #a million above, we already have been at conflict.) there is no longer something interior the form nor US Code that spells out specific language such announcement could desire to utter. the reality that no determination replaced into handed with the words, "we declare conflict" or despite you think of it has to assert, does not modify the inescapable actuality they DID expressly vote to apply protection tension tension against Iraq, specially authorizing the invasion, in actuality. you may declare it truly is not a announcement of conflict in case you like yet no straightforward person will connect you.
2016-10-19 04:12:02 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. I think that every country at war puts a higher value on the lives of its own rather than the lives of others. Its a natural way to feel.
2007-07-12 06:40:02 · answer #7 · answered by David L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the purpose of war is to win so if u lose more troops than the other guy even if he surrenders doesnt make u a winner now does it
2007-07-12 07:12:43 · answer #8 · answered by ggates1982 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it was very wrong. Japan was repeatedly telling the US that they surrender, but the US ignored them so that they can test out their newfound technology on a civilian population (rather than a military base which you'd think would make more sense being that we're supposedly "defending" ourselves from them). They got some really good scientific studies out of it, too.
It's not the same as carpet bombing (which is also atrocious) because generations after the nuclear attack, residents of Hiroshima have suffered the effects of deformities, still births, and cancer. Any pro-life, anti-abortion people think that this is acceptable?
2007-07-12 06:36:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
All sides were already engaged in carpet bombing of cities. The only difference is that the US did it with a single bomb instead of 1000's of fire bombs. The outcome was the same.
2007-07-12 06:36:02 · answer #10 · answered by Louis G 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋