Was the atomic bomb in hirosima and nagasaki a good or bad choice?

Answer 1

Well it was a terrible choice, but it was still the right choice.
President Truman ran the numbers over and over again, and he tried over and over again to negotiate peace with Japan, but it did not work.
Had the Allies had to take Japan with land forces it would have cost many more lives than the two a-bombs did, and they would have been allied lives as well as enemy lives. The few small islands our land forces took from the Japanese came at a great price in human life for both sides, and taking the mainland would have been even more costly in terms of life lost. In addition, that would have caused the war to drag on for at least two more years, which would have cost lives in lots of countries harder hit than the United States. People in the Soviet Union were starving to death even during the war, and had it continued, it would have grown worse.
Though it seems harsh to say it, General Patton put it best when he said (and I paraphrase for language)
"No man ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb man die for his country."
That is what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about.

BTW - To correct misinformation in the answers above - The Japanese were NOT close to surrender, and only the war in EUROPE was drawing to a close. The USSR already knew about the bomb, and it was tens of thousands, but not MILLIONS who lost their lives.

Answer 2

Militarily, it was a good choice. It was a major factor in convincing the Japanese military government to surrender. The Japanese were not about to surrender, they were training every man, woman and child to fight the invaders. And once the invasion had started it probably would have been very hard to stop it.

Morally, the decision was made to drop the bombs to try and prevent a costly invasion. Many more people would have died in an invasion than did in the A-bomb attacks. So it was felt it was necessary to demonstrate the risks Japan was taking by continuing to resist.

The problem now is that people have different attitudes and are disconnected from the times. The world had been at war for a long time, civilians had been bombed for years. The allies were desperate to avoid another drawn out conquest like they had in Germany. The A-bombs provided a short cut, and were used in that capacity. And the second bomb was used so that the Japanese would understand that they could eventually be bombed into oblivion, that it wasn't just a fluke.

Answer 3

You'll never be able to find an answer to this question because Americans will always find a way to justify their actions bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki while Japanese and people from other nations will view it as war crime....

I grew up in the States where we're taught in high school that the bombings were justified because otherwise the US would have had to invade Japan and resulting deaths would number in the millions.

Then I moved to Japan to teach, and saw what my students were learning...How many Japanese were at a breaking point regardless of the war and wanted it to end, and there were growing ranks in the army who wanted to stop the war. When you also visit the Atomic bombing museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you get to see the attacks from the Japanese perspective (Which would never, NEVER, be taught in US high schools). Plus any justification the Americans present for using such a horrid weapon is blown away by their rampant proliferation of Atomic weapons throughout the Cold War. If the weapon is so terrible, why create more of it?

Basically you'll never get a satisfactory answer to this question. Americans will always try to justify it, and Japanese will view it as an atrocity.

Peace.

Answer 4

OK, to most of these answerers: You do realize that Japanese civilians were not involved or had any idea about war crimes committed by the Japanese military? Do you people know about the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse on Iraqi prisoners? Do you know who the torturers were? The US Army. Or what about the My Lai Massacre? Where a US platoon rounded up women and children into a ditch and gunned them down in point blank range. Do these acts justify the killing of innocent American civilians living in the United States just because the US Army committed war crimes in foreign lands? Think about that. Also, to the person asking the question - you asked this question in the "military" section of YA. You do realize that the people in this section are predominantly Americans including many who study, work with or admire the US military? Think about how many of them will say the atomic bombs were unjustified. Edit: Mohammed, the American soldiers sexually abused their prisoners and POWs at Abu Ghraib. This involves rape, inserting objects and forcing inmates to masturbate in front of the American soldiers. I've seen the photos and I think this sort of cruelty is on par with what the Japanese did in the Rape of Nanking don't you think? If you think about it, when certain Japanese units committed cannibalism they did so because they had no other choice and would've starved otherwize. They didn't just eat Allied soldiers, but Japanese soldiers too. That being said, at least the victims were dead.

Answer 5

I personally think that of the options that Truman had the dropping of the Atomic bombs actually lead to fewer loss of life than anything else. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Japanese were ready to surrender, they were not! They were training women and children to help defend from an invasion.

What's worse, the dropping of the bombs or an invasion where soldiers have to make a choice to shoot and kill women and children or be killed by them? Such actions would have had long lasting effects for both sides not to mention the psychological effects such combat would have.

Remember this as well, if Truman hadn't dropped the bombs and instead gone ahead with the invasion and millions had been killed on both sides. Then after the war it was made public that the US military had a weapon that could have ended the war with the loss of thousands instead of millions how would you have reacted to such news?

Answer 6

I'm going to be very unpopular, but I think Truman made the right decision. He believed the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child before surrendering. In fact, they were training grade school children to fight with sharpened bamboo sticks to defend the country. They were also creating their own nuclear weapon which they planned to use on us. Thousands more on both sides would have died if conventional warfare had continued, even more than were killed by the bombs.

Even after Hiroshima, the war leaders refused to surrender, and they planned to continue to fight even after Nagasaki, but Emporer Hirohito stepped in to prevent further suffering.

Also, the long-term effects of the bombs were not known at the time--there was no way Truman could have forseen the effects of radiation poisoning. Hindsight is 20/20.

Answer 7

It was a right choice to do a bad thing. It is sad the Emperor let it go that far. I feel so sorry for the uninvolved victims that were under his rule. It was literally Hell on earth. But one side had to win and one lose to make them stop. I'm glad to be in a country that is not under the rule of a emperor today.

Answer 8

personally i think good

strangely they reckon it actually saved lifes , as it cut the war short

it might not be any consolation to people who were involved in the bombing , but i think the pictures shown around the world of the devastation that occured was a factor in the Cuban missile crisis
it made everyone think twice about going into a nuclear war

so in my opinion , looking back at it , it was the right decision

all the best
Ian

Answer 9

Atomic bombs are always a bad choice. They are a terror weapon and the effects linger for generations.

Answer 10

Bad choice.

As I understand it, the war was nearly over anyway, and Japan would have surrendered even if we had not dropped the bombs.

The bombs were intended as both punitive measures (punishing Japan for Pearl Harbor and their mistreatment of POW's) and messages to the U.S.S.R. (we wanted them to know we had the bomb and weren't afraid to use it). It's a shame that tens of thousands of civilians had to die so a handful of old men could make a point.

To date, America is the only nation to have dropped an atomic bomb on another nation. Coupled with our apparent warlike nature, we're creating an image that should make us ashamed.