2007-10-20 23:58:52 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I don't disagree. I think bombing Hiroshima and Nagisaki got the Japanese to end their war quickly, with far less casualties on each side than a frontal assault on the main islands of Japan by the Americans would have incurred.
Also, the Soviets were swarming into northern China, etc. If the United States did not do something to cause Japan to terminate the war quickly, the Soviets would be all over the Orient...
2007-10-21 00:04:05 · answer #1 · answered by Ya`akov 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I think it was better have the world have seen just how bad a nuclear war would be.
By the way the fire bombings killed more people that the nukes did. I will keep the gassing and the bio weapons that Japan used in china for another day.
2007-10-21 00:55:20 · answer #2 · answered by jmack 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I dont disagree that the bombings were wrong. While tragic and unfortinate for all those that lost their lives in the battle, it would have been more horrific both sides if the Allied Forces had to invade main-land Japan.
The battle in for mainland Japan wouuld have drug the war out monthes if not years. At this point, you would have lost many more lives (Civillians and Soldiers) then dropping a bomb and ending the war early.
Everyone believed it would have taken just one bomb, unfortently it had to take two.
2007-10-21 01:27:50 · answer #3 · answered by B. Wags 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't disagree with the bombings because the war had to end. But I do feel sorry for the innocent who suffered the effects years later.
2007-10-21 00:06:32 · answer #4 · answered by marty47 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
It was unfortunate we had to use the atomic bomb on any one , but it ended the war . Japan had vowed to keep fighting and would not surrender.
2007-10-21 00:11:12 · answer #5 · answered by Hirise bill 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The war was over the Japanese were going to surrender..we bombed em anyway,,,real nice eh?
American intelligence data, revealed in the 1980s, shows that a large-scale US invasion (planned for no sooner than November 1, 1945) would have been unnecessary. Japan was working on peace negotiations with the Allies through its Moscow ambassador in July of 1945. Truman knew of these developments, the US having broken the Japanese code years earlier, and all of Japan's military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: "Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty) is the only obstacle to peace." Truman knew this, and the war could have ended by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor  a leader regarded as a deity in Japan. That concession was refused by the US, the Japanese continued negotiating for peace, and the bombs were dropped. And after the war, the emperor remained in place. So what were the real reasons for 1) the refusal to accept Japan's offer of surrender and 2) the decision to proceed with the bombings?
2007-10-21 00:06:23 · answer #6 · answered by MC 7 · 1⤊ 9⤋
It was the right thing to do.
We flexed our military muscle and our enemies understood that we were serious.
They are now our allies. We don't agree on everything, but that doesn't matter.
2007-10-21 00:59:47 · answer #7 · answered by NSA 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
asians are stubborn people
i woulda gotten pissed and done the same thing if i was the president at that time
2007-10-21 04:15:18 · answer #8 · answered by jim p 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IT saved American lives. remember, we did not attack them.
2007-10-21 00:21:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't...it was the right decision.
2007-10-21 00:08:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋