What was the reason we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

I know we were at war with Japan at the time, but that was an extreme response considering it killed a few hundred thousand civilians. What made us go to that extreme?

Do you think we would do the same today?

I watched a special on HBO last night. It was real footage and interviews from survivors. I can't believe we did that. Just wiped out a few hundred thousand men, women and children like they were ants or something. It's disgusting when innocent civilians have to die. Especially in those numbers.

OK. So it started with Pearl Harbor. I must just be too sensitive. It seemed really inhumane and brutal. The footage was pretty sick seeing all thos babies with their skin falling off and charred to a crisp. Must be because I'm a mother now.

Answer 1

I think the cowardice hit on Pearl Harbor had something to do with it. And, it was decisive, wasn't it? Wish some people now would have that same kind of decisiveness...

Answer 2

By the time the Germans surrendered in May, 1945, the entire world was quite weary of a war that had seen so much destruction and loss of lives, that Truman was looking for an expedient way to end the war in the Pacific Theater. Although Japan had been beaten back and were now fighting on their home soil, the war could have dragged on for at least another six months or longer. There was no telling how many more lives would be lost. On the other hand, knowing beforehand how powerful the atomic bomb was, the American War Department could have seriously questioned the morality of using such an horrendous weapon of destruction, and advised Truman against using it.

Answer 3

WOW! These have been the absolute best answers to a yahoo question I have ever read. I guess if the question isn't somehow related to Hillary everyone puts their best foot forward. Good Job!

I agree with most of the answers:
1) To save American lives. We learned in late 1944 and the 1st half of '45 that every acre of real estate we take will be costly.
2) Politics. Truman needed to end the war because of unpopular ratings and because of the mounting expense.
3) The Russians. If we didn't end the war quickly Russia would end up sitting at the surrender table and that would have resulted in something VERY different than the Japan we know today.

The BIG question is whether we would use the Bomb again. I guess the answer to that question depends on who "WE" is. If "WE" includes George W Bush and Dick Cheney I think the answer is yes. If "WE" includes Hillary and the democrats, then I'm not sure.

Answer 4

1. Put a quick end to WW2 at the lowest cost of lives.
2. Invading Japan would have incurred more casualties; maybe up to a million through loss of soldiers' lives and the lives of all the POW's Japan had committed to kill before allowing liberation of.
3. Not invading Japan, but starving the nation into submission through naval blockading, could have cost more civilian casualties.
4. Dropping the bomb may have served a secondary purpose of spooking the uppity Russians and getting them to be more cooperative in respecting the post war occupation boundaries.

5. Last reason, and one that could stand alone as justification: Nanking. See link below and you will suddenly lose any remorse you feel for us having nuked Japan a couple of times:

http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

Answer 5

By the time the war was drawing near to an end, the tide of popular opinion was turning against the president (as is the norm for this country) even though the president was doing all that was possible at the time to end a war he inherited. The bomb and "nuclear fusion" were new concepts, so little was really known about its long-term effects and the true magnitude of such a decision. The president (whether anyone like it or not) can make decisions based only on the best information available at the time. The overwhelming facts at the time were that the war had already cost thousands in lives on both sides and the history of the war at that time proved that invading Japan's mainland would have cost upwards of a number of American soldiers lives that was equal to the total number already killed. Additionally, the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that the Allies would have had to scratch and claw for every foot of ground they would have gained, thereby dragging the war out for months longer and at what cost on both sides. In the end it came down to pure numbers and what was going to be the lesser of all evils, based on the evidence available at the time.

I have noticed several near-sighted and closed minded answers given here and it appears easy for some to judge, based on a view from what is known today verses what was known then. That the bombs were ever dropped at all from a perspective of today is regrettable yes. But given the information available then, it made perfect sense. But then for some closed and narrow minded folks, you could never convince them of this.

On a last note, the choices of targets were more a matter of three things than anything else:
1) Yes they were industrial cities. But they were not at all MAJOR industrial cities. They were just large enough to make a pronounced statement without overkill.
2) According to transcripts and eye-witness accounts there were many in the inner circle that urged the president to drop the first bomb directly on Tokyo and be done with it in one fell swoop. But the president believed the cost in civilian lives to be to great.
3) The choice of Nagasaki was a secondary one as cloud cover obscured the primary target. The pilots were under strict orders to clearly define the target so as to limit casualties to the fewest number possible.

Would we use "Nukes" today? It is a foolish, closed minded person indeed that refuses to believe or acknowledge the fact that man is capable of anything. However, I am more inclined to believe we have worse things to be concerned with that could be used. I do have have great concerns as to what may happen if we allow ourselves to become preoccupied with "Nukes".

the "Hillbilly Gardener"
Lyndell (Jerry) Miller

[e-mail]
www.jerrysplantsonline.com
www.icelebrateholidays.com

Answer 6

The expectation at the time was that, while Japan was on it's last legs and would lose the war, they would never, ever surrender, and it would take a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland to achieve victory - at a cost of a million or more lives of US soldiers. Keep in mind that this was after four hard years of war already, in which already a few million soldiers and sailors had died.

The bombs were dropped to dramatize the costs to Japan if she were to continue prosecuting the war.

When you ask if we'd do the same today, do you mean if a war of a similar scale and intensity were going on? If you're asking if we would do WW II over again the same way, I think the answer would be yes.

Answer 7

Because the alternative to dropping the Atomic bombs was to invade Japan. Considering the resistance we had incountered on the Pacific islands the casualty rates were estimated to run at about half a million American soldiers killed and wounded and up to 3 million Japanese. Truman wanted to end the war, quickly and with as little loss of american life as possible.
I think if we had to we would do it today. I for one am glad we did drop the bombs, my father was going to be in the first wave of the invasion. The one that has a 99% casualty rate.

Answer 8

First off, you are being way to sensitive. The bombings of Tokyo, Berlin, etc, Caused many more lives to be lost, the bombings of Berlin alone was more then the 2 A-bombs. The A-bombs frightened the Japanese because not of it's killing capacity, but of it's ability to wipe out entire cities. As others have said, the reason why we used them was because the other way to win the war was to invade it, and that would have crippled the Russians (who had already taken severe punishment against the Nazis), hurt US moral, and practically destroy the recovering Australian Military.

THat is why the bombs were dropped.

Answer 9

It killed fewer people. It was a straight numbers game, less people died than we estimated would have been lost in taking Japan with ground forces. The Russians (main WWII ground forces) were prepared to do it, they even declared war after Nagasaki (causing the Japanese surrender per the Russians).

(Note on the numbers...it has nothing to do with American lives being lost vs. Japanese lives being lost. The atom bombings saved lives on BOTH sides. Many more Japanese would have died in taking the islands with a land army. They were prepared to dig in and have everyone fight. That fight would have been against Russian soldiers who heavily outnumbered them and who were known for their attrocities-some as bad as those done by the Japanese).

However, another likely reason for the bombings was to help prevent another war a few years later. The Russians had acquired a lot of land in WWII. They were a huge power and the Western world was terrified of them. Firebombings were done in Germany just before the Russians arrived to show them our might there. Atomic bombings were used in the same way-partially to deal with the immediate problem and partially to terrify the Russians into not fighting us.

Side note: we killed more people in Dresden than we did in either atomic attack. Dresden was populated almost exclusively with POWs and refugees fleeing from our Russian allies who were raping and mudering everything in sight. We told the Red Cross that Dresden was safe before bombing in a way that intentionally created a firestorm to cause the maximum amount of death. Is that somehow justified because it receives less attention and the method of attack was nothing new? There has long been speculation that we didnt fully understand the atomic bombs and exactly what would happen. That cannot be said for firestorm bombing-the RAF declassified their memos that the US had copies of, some of these show in detail how to bomb a city to cause maximum death, not maximum damage.

Answer 10

Well to start off with.We didn't start the war...we ended it!
My Uncle John who survived the Battle of Midway(On the Enterprise) more than likely wouldn't have survived the sea-land of Japan.Also my three other Uncles would have been drafted(or enlisted) to fight.My Aunt Tessie was a W.A.V.E in Korea.She also would have joined.
With 2 bombs Truman saved a lot Uncles/Aunts and Grand-Fathers/Fathers on both sides!
I thank God he made that decision.
What was worse a 100,000+ or 1,000,000 per day(That's what I read).I mean 1,000,000+ per day.Think about it.
What was worse....

No I think we would use smart weapons today.

Oh yeah Mrs that would meant that your Grandfather would have most probably had served if he was of age.Think about that....That means your mom or dad would have never been born....It's a lot to think about...

Answer 11

Context would help.
The closer we were getting to Japan the more lives it was costing Americans and Japanese.

They were fighting to the death and if we did land on Japan it would have last longer and more people who have die.


So Truman was giving the figure of how many who die on both sides if we drop the bomb and if we didn't drop the bomb.
As he said, "It was the toughest 10 seconds of his life."

I know there are lots of revisionists and hindsight 20 20 people. The reality at that time was it save lives.