Atomic bomb?

Question

Do you agree with the allies dropping the atomic bombs???
IN A HURRY

Answer 1

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 2

The whole process was messed up. If there had been a way to demonstrate it, to prove to the Japanese that the leaflets that were being dropped were not a bluff, then we should have gone that way. but the first gadget was dropped on August 6, and the Japanese didn't surrender until the 16th. There was even a report that there were elements in the Army trying to keep the recording of the Emperor from being delivered to NHK. This was the one where he asked the Japanese people, and their armed forces to surrender.

Okinawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and other battles had proved that the invasion was not going to be easy. If the Japanese were telling civilians to kill themselves to avoid being raped by the Americans, and on Saipan they did jump off the cliffs in sizable numbers, the death toll among the Japanese would have been horrendous.

I really don't think they had a choice, not with the number of dead there were already, and the stories there are around that the War department was inflating the casualty estimates.

I don't think there's much of a question about it from the viewpoint of the people who would have had to go. The soldiers who were victorious in Europe were being re-trained for the invasion of Japan. The boys who had been through it all for the duration, were tired, and probably fairly sure that they were going to be killed taking those islands.

Answer 3

An atomic bomb makes use of a uncomplicated explosive to set off the reaction. A thermonuke makes use of an atomic bomb for a set off. An atomic bomb splits atoms. A thermonuke fuses them. A thermonuke is 1000's of cases greater effective.

Answer 4

Because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world was able to see the true horrors of using nuclear weapons. Especially since we now have weapons a thousand times more powerful than the first A-bombs.

I believe that this was a major deterrent from using them during some stage in the cold war. We can only hope that it continues to be one for the future.

Answer 5

The first nuclear weapon was dropped on Aug. 6. Did the Japanese surrender? No. They were certainly determined enough to wait and see the next one. Also I've been hearing this revisionist tripe about the war dept. inflating causality estimates for some time now. If the causalities amounted to one American soldier it was too many.

Answer 6

this of course depends on which side you are on. it has been estimated that the dropping of the a bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the resulting end of the war saved the lives of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Americans when looked at from that point of view it was certainly worth it.

Answer 7

At the time they thought it was the only way to end the war without causing countless bloodshed. Because the Japanese would have fought to the bitter end for the emperor. Even if that meant genocide for the Japanese people.

Answer 8

No, after testing those things, they should have never dropped them on fellow humans.

Mr. Oppenheimer cried.

Answer 9

only at that time did it make sense but no it seems like a bad decision

Answer 10

yes. it worked.