U.S. dropped bomb on Japan Pros/Cons analize?

Question

What were some arguements for The US dropping the bomb on Japan in WWII arguemtns for/against thanks. or any good websites that would give me info about it i don't know where to start X D

Answer 1

Good: Ended the war, saved hundreds of thousands if not more than a million lives if an invasion had to be made. Both sides agree on this and all the Axis forces said they would have used it if they had it as well.
The first pilot to drop the bomb (Paul Tibet's), who recently passed away, said it was necessary and he never lost a second of sleep his entire life after dropping the bomb.

CON: There are no real cons to this, it was a necessary evil at the time and it saved millions of lives.

Answer 2

I also agree that they were necessary evils to finish the war and save not hundreds of thousands, but millions of lives - and nearly all of the lives it saved were Japanese. Taking an extreme view, had the invasion gone on and the Japanese resisted as they did on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Japanese language would be spoken now by about as many people as speak Latin. Stalin would have invaded Manchuria and probably advanced well into China, not so much to end the war as to add to the Soviet empire, since the Japanese would have had to recall whatever forces they could from overseas to defend the home islands. Imagine the effect that would have on history if China had joined the USSR against the USA in the cold war instead of creating the third center of power that kept that war cool.

The US had stockpiled chemical weapons and had them ready to be used in the invasion. Would that have had any less long-term effects than the nukes, beyond killing a lot more people?

As for the demonstration of the bomb that Elizabeth proposes, I don't think it would have been sufficient. It would not impress the hard-core hawks in Japan, and they would have been the ones who went to witness the demonstration, not the Emperor.

Plus, I think there was an added dimension to the effect of the bombs. A few days before Hiroshima was bombed, over 850 B-29s flew raids over Japan. Now, put those two things together - you see 850 planes bombing you one day, and then you see one plane destroy an entire large city all by itself. You have no way of knowing that the next time you see those 850 planes, they won't all be doing what the Enola Gay did. That the second bomb followed immediately after the first made that doubt even stronger.

However, there may be some question about the necessity of the second bomb. Hiroshima was so suddenly and completely cut-off from the world that the government didn't know what had happened to it. Had they been allowed time to figure it out, it might have been enough. But maybe not.

I see it as a similar event to when Katrina destroyed New Orleans. Even with modern communications and transportation, it took a good long time to grasp all the effects. Now imagine if no one had known the hurricane was coming, there are thousands of dead, and there were no helicopters or broadcast media to show what happened. To see how this would affect people, look at how people evacuated Houston a month later when it was threatened by a similar storm.

On the other, the IJA might have said "oh no, that can't happen again" and kept fighting.

After asking the questions, I think it was necessary, and both uses were necessary.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The 100,000 were sacrificed to save the 100,000,000.

Answer 3

OK simple explanation to a question. I'll start with the reasons for the bomb.
1: Land invasion would have cost an estimated 1 million American lives, 6 million Japanese lives(civilian and military). That was for just the invasion of the southern island not the main.
2: The Japanese military had a no surrender culture. They would die rather than surrender.
3: The war was already dragging on 5 years.

Against the bomb:
1: It is a weapon not meant for use
2: it is strictly a weapon designed to kill people and destroy cities.
3: the whole moral thing.

Statics to think about.
More people where killed in the Fire Bombing of Tokyo then where killed in both atomic bombs.
The US told Japan on repeated occasions to surrender or we would unleash hell.
The Japanese military almost succeed in over throwing the emperor after they learned he would end the war.

Answer 4

Dropping the tom bombs on Japan saved not only an estimated million or so Allied lives, but also something on the order of 4-5 million Japanese military lives, as well as maybe twice as many civilians.

Answer 5

Situation:
The Japanese military would not accept defeat. They were training their civilians to fight. They were preparing biological weapons to use against the Americans. American strategists were preparing for an invasion of Japan that would have very high casualties.. higher than Normandy.

Pros: It saved lives. It ended the War much sooner. Even Japanese casualties would have been higher if we continued with conventional weapons.

Japanese held POWs were starved in slave labor camps.

The rape of Nanking, China, in 1937 had an estimated death toll of over 300,000 civilians. Thousands of women were raped, then murdered. Babies were thrown in the air and caught on the points of Japanese bayonets. Korean women were forced into sexual slavery.

The Bataan death march, and the cooking and eating of American prisoners on Ichi Jima are just a few examples of Japanese atrocities. Some prisoners were kept alive for weeks while periodically having strips of their flesh cut from their bodies to feed the Japanese troops. Filipino prisoners were buried up to their necks in sand, then beheaded. Captured U.S. servicemen were dissected while still alive.

Atrocities of this nature were committed in every country that the Japanese attacked. These were not isolated incidents. They were systemic to the Japanese military and the Japanese civilian culture. Japanese businessmen profited from forced slave labor.

The use of atomic weapons ended the war quickly, and saved an estimated 250,000 American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. The na¯ve members of the Bloomington-Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice may choose to ignore Japanese atrocities committed during World War II, but I won't. I will celebrate the justified retribution that ended the war quickly.

Cons: It unleashed a new more horrible weapons upon the earth. Mankind now had the means of destroying itself.

Answer 6

Use of the Atomic bombs (there were two used) saved an estimated 5 million Allied casualties which would have occurred in a conventional invasion of the Japanese homelands.

Use of ordinary conventional Iron bombs, against Japanese industry were justified to weaken the Japanese Military structure.

Answer 7

If you had to make the decision to save between 1 to 5 million lives right now would you do it, even if the consequences where questionable for the future, or would you let them die? See if you can answer this question.

Answer 8

It grow to be a necisary evil. the US gave a warning to the jap some WMD. in the event that they did no longer bomb them, the US might have had to deliver troops into the mainland the place many greater might die. the girls or perhaps some toddlers have been waiting to die for their us of a, removing as many individuals as attainable.

Answer 9

Unless you heard the voice of the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you wouldn't be able to analize the another side of the Pros/Cons.

Answer 10

Hasn't this topic been covered a million times already.....this week alone????