What were the main arguments for and dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?

Answer 1

1. End the war, force the Japanese to realise the war was lost, and continued fighting will result in delay the inevitable, and the needless killings of millions.
2. Save US and Allies lives. An invasion of mainland Japan would have racked up well over 500,000 Allied casualties.
3. Demonstrate the effect of Nuclear Weapons. This was not the primary concern but was probably seen as an added benifit. Let potential enemies (the Soviet Union being one) see the effects of our ultimate weapon. This also stopped Soviet gains (who had just recently declared war on Japan) in the north of Japan and Asia with the stop of the war. We still to this day see the disputed claims of Island in the Sea of Okhtush between Russia and Japan.

Answer 2

Some fairly good answers above. One of the main reasons for using the atomic bomb was that a conservative estimate prior to the US invading was that roughly 1 Million American soldiers would be killed during the invasion. This did not include the millions of Japanese troops and civilians that would also be killed. Once Japan surrendered, the US military evaluated the defenses of Japan and were greatly relieved that the invasion was not necessary as their defenses were much greater than expected and much more than a million deaths could be expected and many years to conquer Japan would be needed.

Answer 3

Well, it has been said before, that the American casualties for a Mainland invasion were staggering. Over a million American deaths were expected.

And a further argument is that in taking many of the outer islands, the Japanese casualties were significantly higher due to an incredible devotion on the part of Japanese soldiers and a refusal to surrender.

It has been estimated that Japanese casualties would have been over 5 million if we had invaded the mainland.

Although I would like to argue it, I don't think it's very likely that the army considered Japanese casualties. I bet it was only Amercan casualties really considered.

Answer 4

I don't know all of the arguements, but back in WWII the only other way to defeat Japan would have been to land a massive ground force there. The ensuing battle would have cost an estimated one million American lives, if my memory is correct (I may be wrong on that). And that's not counting the civilian population that would have been caught in the crossfire.

Also, Japan is located in a part of the world that back in the 1940's was extremely difficult to get to with a large invasion force, not to mention the supplies needed to keep that invasion force alive and working.

So, the US government thought that it was picking the lesser of two evils. It brought about Japan's surrender. Nevermind that it only targeted civilians.

Answer 5

nicely, the country of japan became thoroughly controlled with the help of the defense force, the emperor needed to offer up with the words that he and the the remainder of the government did no longer could step down. Truman had lots of different recommendations different than dropping the bomb: a million) letting the eastern resign and enable them to maintain the emperor. 2) blockade the coast. 3) invade 4) yet another D-Day. 5) the a-bomb. the eastern already have been given by our blockade whilst they went to bomb pearl harbor. our government feared that yet another pearl harbor could take place if we enable them to stay in capability. for 3 and four, our government became worried appropriate to the yankee and cilivian casualty count variety. it of course wasn't the excellent decision and Truman would have replaced the treaty record a sprint, yet he made the alternative to waste harmless human lives and make the eastern resign unconditionally yet with the help of utilising the bomb, all of us started the nuclear palms race and the chilly war. in my viewpoint, i think of it became a foul decision.

Answer 6

1. It saved an estimated 5 million US and Allied casualties, this estimate was given for the projected invasion of the Allied home islands.

2. The Japanese High Command were given two opportunities to surrender unconditionally so the responsibility falls squarely on their shoulders by playing hardball.

Did you ever try to calculate the amount of deaths & suffering caused by Japanese expansionist plans from China, Burma, Philippines, Dutch East Indies Pacific Islands, Borneo, Indonisea etc...etc...

It falls far short of the Japanese deaths, in two cities that were bombed.

Answer 7

This question should be banned, it get asked at least 2-3 times a day.

10’s of millions of people had been killed throughout the world up to that point during the course of WWII. Millions and millions of more would have died in an invasion of mainland Japan.

Regardless, trying to use 2007 logic to analogize a conflict which ended 62 years ago is empirically stupid…

Answer 8

Saving american lives.
Th estimated casualties for the invasion of Japan was over a million troops, plus complete utter evestation, the A-bomb stopped that.

Answer 9

Yea to get them to end the war with as little lives lost as possible. Though it was terrible they dropped the bombs and what happened afterwards... it was effective enough that Japan surrendered.

Answer 10

After the fanatical fighting for Iwo Jima it was estimated that there would be as many as 1 million U.S casualties when we invaded the Japanese home islands. The Bomb eliminated those dead and wounded.