what do the americans feel about hiroshima?

Question

i am just interested in what the american public feel about the use of atomic weapons?
what do they really think about the bombing of hiroshima?

Answer 1

There are two basic schools of thought regarding the use of the atomic bombs at the end of world war two.

One group of people hates the fact that we did it. They call Truman a murderer and think the whole decision was attrocious. Their reasoning is first off, Hiroshima was not a military target and mainly civilians were killed. Secondly, there is evidence that the war was ending soon and a surrender was immenent. Some people aslo believe that we wanted to defeat Japan and not wait for the Russians to come help out (they were on their way and would have invaded Japan probably by fall of 1945)

Another school of thought is that the bombs, however horrible they were, saved lives in the long run. These people take a utilitarian approach, which means basically that the ends justify the means. They reason that since Japan was resorting to suicide bombing and there was propaganda being spread by the emporer that every man woman and child would take up arms against the Americans, the war would have dragged on for years. Due to the Japanese overwhelming zeal, American troops would have been forced to kill millions of Japanese. In the end, according to these pro bomb people, the bomb saved millions of lives at the cost of thousands.

As far as most Americans go, I would say it is split probably close to 50/50. From my own personal experience, conservatives are more likely to be pro bomb and liberals are more likely to be anti bomb, though this is just from a few people I have talked to.

I personally am a bit of a utilitarian, so I tend to lean towards the latter school of thought. However if there was evidence of an imminent surrender and it turns out the bombs would not have ended the war any sooner, then I am against them.

I hope this answers your question.

Answer 2

American views on the issue remain divided to this day.

I think most modern Americans look at bombing of Hiroshima strictly in a historical context. Few Americans today equate modern Japan with the Japan of the World War II era. The bombing of Hiroshima is seen as a significant historical event. Some Americans also still debate the ethicality of dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the necessity of their use at that stage in the War. Some firmly believe that the use of these weapons helped bring a swifter end to the War and thus ultimately saved more lives than it cost. Others believe that it was essentially overkill and an Allied victory was all but certain at that point in any case. What the modern American public feels about the use of nuclear weapons in the current age is also a divisive issue, though I would venture to say that most sane, rational people would be firmly against the use of nuclear weapons in almost any eventuality. I believe more Americans today are more concerned about the possibility of a terrorist faction of some sort getting hold of a nuclear device and using it to take innocent lives than they are about the prospect of a full-fledged nuclear war between nations, as was the prevailing fear throughout the Cold War era. As with any other issue, it’s difficult to say because opinions in America are much like bellybuttons in that everybody has one and no two are exactly alike. You are likely to get a host of diverse answers to a question such as this one, but I do feel that this is an excellent question for civilized discussion and debate.

Answer 3

I think that must depend upon the "public's" age. We who lived through WWII, saw that due to the Japanese peoples' faniacal worship of the Emperor, they would fight to the death. The slaughter of both Allied and Japanese people would have been horrendous. As it is, some islands--can't remember which ones, the people committed suicide rather than be captured by the Allies. The Japanese War Machine had convinced the people that they would all be killed by the Allies and tortured. The use of the atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I believe, saved thousands and thousands of lives. Also, Japan had just come out of a thousand years of Shoguns who ruled ruthlessly! After a victory, samari roamed the conquered territory, beheading those who showed the least flicker of rebellion. The Japanese gave unwavering loyalty to their Authority Figures--their Emperor--and they would never have given up until The Emperor surrendered. A horrible thing--and I wish that America had dropped just the first bomb--and given an ultimamatim sp? to surrender or suffer the second one on Nagasaki. At least give them a choice--the shock had still not worn off in only, what? six days???

Answer 4

You are young, aren't you?

President Truman stayed awake for 48 hours making the decision, after considering all the alternatives and the estimated casualties. ON BOTH SIDES.

The planned invasion of a well fortified Japan was estimated to cost an additional 500,000 American casualties. More than that for the Japenese with 24 hour bombings planned over Japan.
We didn't have any "smart bombs" back then. Bombs fell indescriminatly, and could kill 1000s of civilians.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombarded with leaflets by the millions to evacuate. That the islands would be destroyed.
They were the least populated islands in the Empire.

The rest is history.

I have a question. If we had the atomic bomb and decided not to use it, but went forward with a land invasion, what would the Americans think about the reality of above casualties? Now?

Answer 5

The bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a paradox, contained in the experience that you're killing human beings, to shop human beings. Japan change right into a heavily fortified island. Estimates on the time were that it would want to fee over one hundred,000 Allied lives, and a million plus eastern lives. This, Allied Commanders got here across unacceptable, with the aid of undesirable numbers of projected lack of stay to inform the tale each and each fringe of the equation. The instant style of lives lost with the aid of bombings change into decrease than 2 hundred,000. the alternative to proceed on mission had to be between the hardest judgements from an ethical perspective ever made contained in the heritage of modern-day warfare. Tactically, and morally by ability of the completed style of lives kept, it would want to look to were the finest decision. undergo in concepts, the eastern had vowed to strive against 1000 years if needed. as on the prompt they were nonetheless heavily into the code of Bushido, the infantrymen code, or way. For me, I thank God is change into no longer as a lot as me to envision which course to take. extra @ Southern Baptist- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both millitary business complexes, it really is why they were picked as objectives.

Answer 6

I'm not an American,but they had to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to stop the war.Nagasaki,was a mistake though,also,more people died in the Tokyo firestorms,through 'conventional' bombing.

Answer 7

Trouble being Granster it isn't "done and over" these were nuclear weapons, the effects are still on going to this day.

It is incredibly naive to compare it with 'standard' bombings The Germans and the British put each other through.

Answer 8

It was such a long time ago and brought a dreadful war finally to an end.
You might as well ask what do the Brits think of bombing Germany and vice versa.
It.s done, it's over, move on. Hopefully it scared anyone else from considering another such act.

Answer 9

It saved hundreds of thousands of Allied militarys lives, but more important it saved MILLIONS of Japanese CIVILIAN lives.
The estimate for civilian losses if an Invasion of the Japanese mainland was neccesary was in the 2 to 3 million range.
What do I think of the bomb being dropped? It was more humane that what ToJo had planned for the Japanese people.

Answer 10

The bombing was just considering the reason for the bombing. The rebuilding is what I have a problem with. Rest assured, had they have bombed us, they would not have rebuilt us!