What did we learn by Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

Personally, I think we learned that in an epic war, you have to play hardball. Because when you do, you get results that you could never get trying to constantly talk without any threat of action, or meaningful action. It seems like we forgot those lessons though.

But Why, that was the worst answer in the history of Yahoo! Answers.

Answer 1

we learned that these bombs can and will end a war, and what effects these bombs have on society

Answer 2

We learned, along with the rest of the world, just how horrific these weapons are & that we will use them, if we have to do so. The dropping of those bombs was not an easy choice for President Truman; he did so with great reluctance. But, it ended a war that had the prospects of costing many more Allied lives. We did not start that war, we did not want that war, but we got it just the same. We did what had to be done & although I would hate to see them used again, better that than loosing a war with another country! I won't vote for a person who says that those bombs are off the table, we will never use them again, no matter what, must be out of his mind! Our having those WMDs are what have saved our necks all these years!

Answer 3

That it is possible to end a war / prevent more bloodshed in the long term (invasion of Japan) with the demonstration of total destruction (in 1945 terms) of the center of a city using only one aircraft and one bomb.

It was a gamble considering the allies only had 3 bombs (The Gadget, Fat Man and Little Boy) complete. One bomb was detonated in the US and the other two on Japan. The two targets Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which was actually attacked because the primary target was deemed too difficult to accurately target that day) did not offer the highest possible casualty rate of potential targets. The allies could have chosen a city with a higher population density or industrial (what was left of Japanese industry in '45) target.

It is also worth mentioning that the fire bombing campaign prior to the atomic bombing actually killed more of the enemy and his infrastructure. Even with this though the Japanese failed to concede defeat.

Answer 4

I think we learned that the atomic bomb is such a destructive piece of weaponry, that is somethign we can only use when all other options have been spent and no other alternative is present.

It was either the atomic bomb or invading Japan back in 1945, which would've meant that we would've lost millions of troops in taking the island nation and perhaps killing tens of millions of innocent Japanese civilians in the process. (Google Operation Downfall)

THe Atomic bomb is a weapon that we used once and hope we never use again, but is a choice we still have and we as a nation, have been responsible enough not to use it, even when MacArthur and Eisenhower made plans to use it against North Korea and perhaps China in the 50s and was even considered to end the War in Vietnam.

(Glad we never used them).

Answer 5

this is a bit of a hard question to answer,
first the cities were in different land conditions, one on flat ground, the other in hilly country....one was devistated the other was not that badly hit

the injuries to the people were consistant with the terrain also, in the flat area, the injuries were thermal burns for those who survived at distance, and projectile for the closer ones

in the hilly areas, many escaped unharmed as the blast was line of site, the shock wave traveling 12 miles in 52 seconds was unable to bend around hills and sort of just dusted them

in terms of society, we learned that the atomic age has drastic ramification, to the terrorist, it is pandor's box, to the peace demonstrator, it is hell on earth to be avoided.

we (the u.s. of a.) reserve the right to use them to retaliate against an enemy.

you have honestly asked a tough question. in the event of a terror attack, how hard do we strike muslim nations as that would be the "identified" source of the attacks....

I state this as afgan was bombed heavily after the towers were struck in 01. Do we use neutron bombs? or do we send our sit coms over to destroy the infidel islam terrorist.

nukes demand respect. they are as dangerous to the holder as the victim should they get away. I had an uncle who was a steam reactor tech. who used to say, the only difference between steam killing you and a nuclear bomb was the fall out.

when the targets you ask about were chosen, they were cities that probably no american had heard of. they live in the memories of all free men as symbols to be avoided at all costs.

I think we have learned that the cost of nukes is too high for any nation, what say you?

Answer 6

That these bombs Should never be used again against HUMAN Beings. Yes they will stop a war yet the pain and suffering of many is not worth it.

Answer 7

We learned how to end a war the right way, without tip toeing around and wasting more US lives. We also made our point that day. If you think we didn't, ask yourself if Japan has attacked anyone since then.

Answer 8

We learned that using nuclear weapons can be very use full in the right hands. it saved thousands of American lives from invading the Japanese mainland.

Answer 9

I hate to say this but it was probably the right decision at that time and that war.I don't believe the Japanese would have surrendered and would have gone on for years with tens of thousands of more deaths.

Answer 10

How it was possible to save 1 million Allied soldiers lives by utilizing technology (that they the enemy would have had no problem using on us if they had managed to build it first).