Should we have or shouldn't we have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan?

Show all answers

samurai_dave

DimHalo's theory is a first one for me - Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen in order to experiment with atomic weapons almost 4 years afterwards!(?)

As to the question, this has been asked quite a few times here and you can see similar responses. The chief reason for dropping the bombs was to avoid a massive invasion of the mainland. The Battle of Okinawa helped to push the powers-that-be to finally deciding on using the bombs to force capuliation. The death toll and destruction of an invasion would have been far worse. The A-bombs also gave Hirohito the ability to once and for all silence the war-mongers who had been controlling Japan for years.
--------------------------------------...
Some people here really need to open up a history book and not one of those glossed over Japanese texts that refer to Nanking as an "incident."

The idea that the bomb was only intended to kill Asians or rather non-Europeans is ludicruous. Checking the timeline, one can easily find out that the A-bomb was not ready for action by the time Germany was out of action. Churchhill however wanted the A Bomb used as soon as possible so there goes that theory out the window. As it as, Dresden got pounded by a severe firebombing.

Dropping the bombs on deserted islands as a show of force shows poor miltary tactics and a poor understanding of history. Given that the US only had two A-bombs at it's disposal, the high rate of fight to the death of Japanese forces, and the hard learned lessons of the Battle of Okinawa, it would have been the height of folly to have wasted the bombs in a futile show of power. Any true history student knows anyway that it took 2 bombs and the potential threat of more to come to get Japan to surrender. Think about that over your Latte - two atomic bombs, not one atomic bomb, were needed to bring Japan to surrender. People also forget that Japan had alot of forces in mainland Asia that it would have called back to defend the country.

area52

Japan was ready to surrender in late July 1945.
US justification for two A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally none-sense just like Bush excuse for the war in Iraq.

Joriental

America had 3 a-bombs at that moment.
One was used for the first experiment in New Mexico.
The 2nd was on Hiroshima and the 3rd was on Nagasaki city.
Both cities had a considerable number of population, modern buildings, were surrounded by mountains, had rivers and deltas, and bays.

There are more than 1000 desert islands around Japan. And those desert islands are close to the cities and people can view islands from a distance. 2nd one should be dropped on the desert island first. Then people could get to know the power of the new bomb which people had never seen. But US didn't take this operation.
I think the strategy using A-bombs were as same as Curtis Emerson LeMay's blind bombing.

I think they needed the data after the explosion. Actually America sent research and filming teams to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is why we can watch the damage of that time today.

Western people say if were no A-bombs, Japanese would never give up and stop fighting. But after the defeat, did you see any terror attacks or serious insurgences against GHQ by Japanese? like Iraq and Afgan? The answer was no.
You can read how the situation after August 1945 was in MacArthur's book.

Maybe you can get various POV in the history or millitary sections.

JJJ

The problem is US- government always try to make that fact as justified thing.

Reign of Terror

of course not! first of all, war is never, ever a good thing, but that's a different discussion. From what i can gather, America already had Japan in their claws so there was no good reason to drop not one, but two bombs. War should always be between the military of warring countries and never should it concern the civilians. (the war in Iraq should not concern the civilians, that's terrible) The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just an excuse for America to exercise world power on a country who were far behind in technology. The result was generations later of birth defects and life illness. The mass murders (which is what it was) can never be justified, no matter how many decades of debates.

jenkins

it's not a matter of whether we should have or shouldn't have, it's the fact that we did

We are not terrorists ÙŠØ§ Ø¹ÙŠÙ†ÙŠ

In times of war or peace, the death of thousands of people in the news is just a faceless statistics.

In times of war or peace, the death of one father, one mother, one son, one daughter, one friend, is always a tragedy.

You are the only one who can answer that question.

boohoo_Jebus

The war was already over, and the Japanese government knew it. They were running out of money and supplies. They wanted to surrender "without losing face". But "we" would'nt allow it. We had a point to prove. The Russians had their own plans to invade a weakened Japan. And the Nazis were close to having their own bomb. So "we" decided to scare everyone by murdering a couple hundred thousand innocent women, children, and elderly people.

DimHalo

If they didn't drop it on Japan, they would have dropped it on Germany. Testing of the atom bomb were upon completion during the final phase of the war. The military and the developers of this ultimate weapon knew that it could put a stop to the war. So how could they justify the usage of this terrible bomb?? By letting the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, though they knew the invasion was coming, this would be the solution for an appropriate retaliation and a chance to see the effectiveness of their invention. The lives of those service men and women of Pearl Harbor, and the thousands of innocent Japanese civilians of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, were expendable, all for the sake of the experimentation of the atom bomb.

harukaãƒ»ã¯ã‚‹ã‹

Bombs are never a very good idea, remember, innocent people die.

Kei5

War is war.Every time winner takes all and you can't simply say which side is good or bad.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents were so horrible and we learned it should never be repeated but still, for some people it was inevitable.
I personally believe there would be other options to cease the war like Joriental wrote.

BTW do you know Japan was also researching A bombs ?
We could not make it but I am sure if we had it would have been used for US forces or maybe even for the citizens.How do you think of this ?Both sides of people believed they were the justice not only this case,but everytime wars occure.And for the people fightng in the middle of the field killing and defeating is always far better than surrender or death.The US completely defeated Japan by the two A bombs and other bobming in major cities and occupation of Okinawa this is just the truth.

It's all up to which perspective you research from.Humanity or strategy ?

ecoguy

What do you mean you're deciding whether you should drop it? Do you have one or something!? Everyone in Japan! Run!!!

The war would have went on way longer if not for the bombs. The Japanese surrendered because they believed the US had a bunch of these bombs which wasn't true because we weren't able to make another one for a very long time. Dropping the bombs stopped the war and prevented possible millions from being killed.
On the other hand... The US dropped it on civilians,, not army bases. Which is sick. But donâ€™t think the Japanese wouldnâ€™t have done the same if they had an A-bomb.

Rabbityama

So is this a school assignment? You have to pretend you are making the decision to drop the bomb or not? Hmm...

It's a difficult thing to answer, I think. The war would have ended regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped, and certainly America was still set to be the victor however, it is the post-war situation and how it would end that makes it difficult.

Certainly it is wrong to say that the atomic bomb dropping was "deserved", but in response to whether it should or should not have been dropped... I want to say "It should not have been dropped", because I have been to Hiroshima and I have read about the affects of the bombings. I am against nuclear weapon usage and proliferation. My only reservation is whether or not Japan would be what it is today. For example, if the bomb was not dropped, it was likely that Russia would have helped America to defeat Japan, but this would mean that Russia would have a say in post-war Japan. There is no way that Japan would be the same as it is today. The dropping has also made Japan a great advocator of peace and nuclear disarmament... I guess you have to ask yourself if you believe the differences in the unbombed Japan would be better than the current Japan.

FumiA

To end the war ? then why they didn't drop them on Germany(Caucasian)at that time?
Why us(Asian)? there was something.

I gather it was simply the EXPERIMENTATION of the A-bomb, and the worst thing happened in the 20th century.
They destroyed human beings AND global environment.

However I do not hate American for all this.
There is no good war, every war is bad.
and the PAST is past.

Good luck with your research!

Kevin L

I don't think we should back dropped the atomic bomb because everything can be sove with talking. right?

bluemoonmemory

Many Americans say It should be the best way for stopping war and minimizing victims though it is just one side looking as justification by winner of the war.

In addition, any escape from the inspection of Atomic bomb afterward as saying as fact is fact is also unconscious self-deception.

The bombs were targeting to not only military but also civilian. It was a massacre for Asian.(USA didn't intend to drop the bomb on any European enemy because they weren't Asian.)

If they didn't drop it on Japan, they would have dropped it on Germany. That is totally silly and absurd because German had surrendered already before.

Japan was ready to surrender in late July 1945. This is a historical fact by official report. Many Americans have not been taught this fact at all.

On the other hand, USA really wanted to finish the war too early because they knew Russian communist would soon come down to invade Japan. So as to avoid political topology of disadvantage the bombs had been dropped in a sense. Not only finishing war itself.

We should have always to inspect the background of history and still pay respect for past ancestors who fought for their nationality and families.

For the question, I think it was even nothing better though the justification itself is a kind of way too much. If they could justify the dropping, why not same thing by muslims who attacked by Jewish.

guitarguy1212

there is no reason for killing..i dont care about all the politcs that dam governments create and then due to greed or some crap they start wars and innocent people need to die for their bullshit...to all the governments **** you all

cooldude

What has happened has happened and is now part of history so i don't understand why you are making a decision about something which probably happened years before you were even born..
And what do you mean by "we dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshema at the end of ww2" were you one of the soldiers that did it??

ctmarlin40

yes for the reason that the Japan goverment would not stop fighting until we dropped the bombs. Japan is a proud nation and would not easily accept the loss of the war. By dropping the bombs we saved countless lives on both sides of the war. It is true that they were planning a massive strike on U S soil to get the allies to surrender. I hate that it had to happen the loss of civilian life in war is never a good thing.

it ended the war and got all those wako's out right?or did it?hummmm...

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: