Was it right for us to drop the two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945?

Question

It ended the war but were the other alternatives?

Answer 1

War is a horrible thing, but not always morally wrong (compared to alternatives). Were lives SAVED as a result of the use of the bombs? We only know that about 150,000 were lost, which is less than the death toll of conventional bombing of Tokyo and Dresden.

Many believe that Japan would have been forced to surrender if a full naval and aerial blockade had been maintained thru 1946. By late 1944 the Japanese home islands were collapsing economically. How many would have starved or committed mass suicide can only be guessed. And how many Chinese, Phillipinos and others would have died at the hands of the Japanese? Do they get a vote?

My ex-wife's grandmother was at Nagasaki when the second bomb was dropped. She survived to old age and said to us that it was the right thing to do because it probably saved her life (see subject of starvation/suicide above).

Answer 2

Here's the situation, you're at war, the enemy doesn't want to surrender (they were training women and children to fight off an invasion). Here's your options:
1. Diplomacy - already failed twice earlier both in Europe and in the Pacific only six and four years ago respectively.
2.. Invasion - experts predict that over a million people will be killed. Allied soldier might have to fight and kill women and children or be killed by them, not a good choice.
3. Blockade and bombardment of Japan - would result in much greater destruction, perhaps starvation, and death then the two bombs.
4. Drop an atomic bomb or two if they don't agree to terms - a radical idea that had a possibility of failure. there was no guarantee that the bomb would work.

Now going back to 1945, without knowledge of how things will happen what option sounds the quickest, and with the least amount of casualties?

Answer 3

Unfortunately there are too many sides to this argument. Here are the facts.
1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had fewer casualties than the fire bombings of Tokyo.
2. The US and the USSR were preparing for invasion which was supposed to take place in the Fall of 45 or the spring of 46.
3. The estimated casualties for such an invasion were stated to be in the millions. Allied casualties alone were estimated to be nearly 800,000.
4. Diplomacy was tried several times throughout the war, and Japan refused to unconditionally surrender.
5. The japanese had proven that arming women and children in the fight was not only a possibility, but a probability.
6. Americans were just coming back from European theatre and being sent straight to Pacific Front Training. Morale was dropping rapidly for those just coming from the European Theatre.
7. Though economically collapsing since 41 (remember the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor due to the fact that they had very little oil left, and America refused to trade oil with them after their invasion of China), Japan still showed they were willing to give up whatever resources they could to kill as many allied forces as they could. Kamikaze attacks and suicide bombers were common near the end of the war, yet if Japan was so economically bad, why waste planes and people when you need both. Japan had proved that it was going to use WHATEVER means necessary to repel allied troops. This helps and concurs with the casualty predictions for the invasion of Japan.
8. The dropping of two atomic bombs didn't give Japan enough time to recover with anything worse such as chemical warfare and biological warfare. By ending the war quickly with the atomic bombs, it saved countless lives that would have been lost due to biological and chemical warfare already beginning to be implemented into Japanese munitions near the end of the war. There were occasions where smallpox was put in artillery shells, or others.

In reality these bombs prevented an escalation in horrific types of warfare not seen since WWI in the forms of chemical and biological warfare. If the weapons had been escalated to these types of warfare, the world may have seen the loss of millions of lives, trumping any number of lives lost in the European Theatre.

Answer 4

From a moral point of view, even justifying war is a moral dilemma. I am not American and do not have that strong sympathies that a native born American would have regarding the matter. My country, South Africa, was part of the Allied forces, so yes, in essence was a part of the combatants who fought against the Japanese in WW II. Thus also partly responsible for the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was it right? I suppose from a war scenario, yes, as a "quick remedy" - according to the well-known chess maxim: attack is the best form of defense, and the harder you hit the other guy, the quicker you'll get him to surrender.
From a moral standpoint? Hell, I think if the scientists and the generals at the time could foresee the consequences of their actions, perhaps they would have thought twice before doing so. Yet, without those bombs having had the devastating effect it did have, no one would have benefited today from atomic electricity generating power plants - much safer, more environmentally friendly and more efficient than the old coal burners. So something did come out of it too - whats that old one about making omelets and breaking eggs?
I don't think there were really other alternatives either, apart from wasting another million odd Allied lives in combat.

Answer 5

Perhaps the first bomb was justified. But we really gave Japan no chance to understand what we had done before dropping the second. So to that, a definitive "NO"!

It is interesting to point out how many of the developers of the bomb did not want its deployment! Read the books of Richard Rhodes for some interesting background information on this. The Truman Museum in Kansas City also has some fascinating quotes from those involved at the time -- some you would NOT suspect!

"I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way of surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'." -- Eisenhower, 1963

"THe war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms that will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detain and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender." -- from a petition signed by 67 atomic scientists to Truman. Unfortunately, he did not see it before the order.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." Adm William Leahy, 1950

Answer 6

There were all sorts of alternatives. A peace agreement was at hand. All the signs pointed toward if it didn't have "unconditional surrender" at the top to avoid Japanese embarrassment (even if it was unconditional surrender) and if it allowed them to keep the Emperor, Japan would jump at peace. The US wouldn't have it, dropped the bomb, AND still let them keep their Emperor.

There are a lot of wrongs in war. Bombing London, Desdin and Tokyo jump to mind. Atrocities on all sides. Were any of them right? No, including the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any of the wrongs by the enemy don't make up for wrongs of any other. Pearl Harbor is so far down on the list, not the top 10, not the top 25. Yet it keeps coming up as a reason to drop the bomb?

Another scenario. The USSR was willing to enter into the war. A second front would have quickly finished off a foe who saw the end was near. The US just didn't want USSR there. So better to kill Japanese than have them in the USSR. If as stated, the bomb was to put USSR in it's place, then it failed. It put them in their place. That of realizing they needed atomic weapons FAST to protect themselves. And they had them in no time at all.

Answer 7

Dropping those bombs accomplished three things.

1. Japan's unconditional surrender. Japan was trying to surrender but with certain conditions.
2. Saving American lives. Original casualty estimates were given at 800,000 American dead, based on the severity of fighting all throughout the Pacific campaign, for the invasion of the Japanese home islands.
3. Putting the Soviet Union on notice.

Yes were were right to do so. Atrocities were committed on both sides. However, the use of atomic weapons actually saved lives. The consequense would have been a fight to the death on the Japanese Home Islands.

Answer 8

definite, -It ended the conflict rapidly, stored lot's of money - stored tens of millions of the two US and jap lives average if an invasion of mainland Japan have been to ensue, with the way the jap might use the final guy, lady and newborn to safeguard the country to the very final hut or cave, we'd have had to somewhat tear down each city, village and the forests and bombard their mountains to hell. -Incase the U. S. invasion might have failed, think of of what might of happened to the jap if the Soviets invaded, then Japan could have been communist and tens of millions greater might have died there. it somewhat is gloomy and terrible that we had to bomb civilian cities in spite of the indisputable fact that it replaced into the only way shall we get the jap to provide up without an all out invasion!

Answer 9

Yes. It was right. They started the war...we just finished it. If we had invaded the Japanese islands it would have cost many hundreds of thousands of American lives. It killed a lot of people dropping those bombs, but the alternative is much worse for us as Americans.

Answer 10

I feel it was wrong to kill so many people that way. Many innocent people including children that had nothing to do with the war where killed in one cloud of smoke. I feel by that point Japan was pretty much finished. The original plan of invading Japan wouldv'e been enough to end the war.