Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were the bombs necessary?

[Guest Levy]

Ever since President Truman's decision to drop the bombs to end WWII there has been much debate about whether the atomic bombs were necessary.

 

I open this debate with my strong opinion, and I will back it up with facts as the debate progresses.

 

The decision to drop the bombs was a hard decision, but the right one.

Many of you would disagree, I want to hear what you have to say.

[kikaown]

It was the right thing to do. Although many people died, prolonging the war would have led to more misery and death. Besides, the Japanese were so fanatical that they would not pay attention to anything else.

[antiaircraft]

I agree with both of you. Although a conventional blockade/invasion could have won the war, it would have resulted in many more humanitarian problems. The atomic bombs were the only means of a quick and decisive solution to WWII, despite the horrendous damage they caused.

[Lutarist Jake]

No, WWII would have ended even if the bombs were not dropped. Japan would have surrendered if the USA had simply taken over more Japanese lands

[antiaircraft]

That's not my point - without the bombs the USA would have had to either had to sustain its blockade or invade Japan, both of which would have caused more suffering and deaths on both sides than the bombs did. Therefore, dropping the bombs was the only quick and decisive way in which to end the war.

[The Original Luna]

I agree with Jake- America had no right to bomb Nagasaki or Hiroshima- the lives lost were unnesesscary- anyway, the policy of America was to nuke Japan into submission- they were ready to give up at that time. There was even a poll about what should happen to Japan after that. One option was "Stop Japan being a country" another was "abdicate the Emperor" and there were others...

[The Big Cheese]

Im just about to learn about this in history, so, Ill get back with my informed opinion.

 

As of now though, I dont think it was necessary to kill that many innocent civilians there are many other ways to do it and they did nothing to deserve to die. Even Japanese back in Canada and the US were forced into internment camps where they had to stay until the end of the war. THey did nothing wrong, but the government wanted everyone safe.

[Ellie_Penguin]

I don't agree with killing innocent people. But you have to remember that the US did warn Japan about a plan they had that would change the history of the world. What I don't get is why they always involve civilians, it's not like the government really cares about their people. It should only be between governments and leave civilians out of their problems. I would have to say that maybe the positive side is the new law of the use of nuclear weapons. If it wasn't for that catastrophe, I doubt the law would've changed and other countries would be using those weapons right now.

[Chipmonker]

I believe it was needed as an absolute end to the war. For the citizens and the government to immediately surrender under unconditional terms would prevent further loss of life on both sides.

 

But you also have to remember in retrospect, that both the US and Japanese citizens were apart of WWII's total war. Every citizen was required to take apart of drafts, rationings and acts to help the military. It was no much different in the US than in Japan. And I can even point out examples of that.

 

After the Battle of Saipan, thousands of citizens and soldiers committed suicide in order not to be captured by Allied forces. You can debate whether or not they were "brainwashed," but I have a feeling that many American citizens could or would have done the exact same thing if the US had been invaded.

[Ellie_Penguin]

I think they went too far with 2 nuclear bombs. Even a small one would've scared us all.

[antiaircraft]

The thing there is that even after the first nuclear bomb Japan refused to surrender... maybe they thought the US wouldn't dare to use another?

[Guest Levy]

There are many beliefs as to why they dropped two with a three day interval, one reason was to show that the US had many ready to be dropped instead of just the two and another thought was that the US was trying to show the USSR their strengths before the Cold War. Three days is not enough time to surrender.

 

Yes the bombs were a sheer showing of power.

 

Weight the odds, what is around 150,000 deaths compared tho the MILLIONS that would have died if the US went with their plans to invade?

 

AND, I have read many stories about Japan's Korean slaves. The bombs acctually saved and freed people. Let me try to find a story...

POW says Nagasaki bomb saved his life

'America was right,' says Korean slave in Nagasaki

 

The bombs saved more lives than they cost...

'An invasion was going to be bloody'

 

The Japanese are a proud people, always have been. If there was an invasion, they would fight with aggression like which this planet has never seen. They would put a gun in anyone's hands who could hold it and send them to the front lines. Even with that, they would have lost.

[Chipmonker]

one reason was to show that the US had many ready to be dropped instead of just the two and another thought was that the US was trying to show the USSR their strengths before the Cold War. Three days is not enough time to surrender.

 

I wasn't going to add that, but it is theorized by many people that the bombs were used to frighten the Soviets. Already at that time, the Russians had absolute control of many eastern european nations and 1/4 of Germany that they wouldn't relinquish control over.

 

The United States feared that the Russians would begin the fight in the Pacific against Japan. Which would give them control of any Japanese territory they took over. And trust me, the US was not going to the Communists gain control over more land.

[kikaown]

Actually, at that time, the Western world wasn't worried about communism at all. They had their hands full with Fascism in Italy and Germany. It wasn't until Stalin started in with the partition of Germany that the US realized that they had to stop the Communists.

[Chipmonker]

The partition of Germany came before the atomic bombs. But that doesn't even really matter because throughout the war (and even before) there was mutual distrust and ideological tension between the US and the USSR. And the US emerged from the war already swinging at the Soviets with NATO and the Truman doctrine.

 

For example, throughout the war the Soviets were deeply suspicious of U.S. military tactics and strategies. As were the British, French and Americans of the Soviet's tactics. For example, one of the US's goals of the Battle of Berlin was to beat the Soviets there. They didn't want the Soviets to get ahold of Berlin. I also remember reading in some places (can't find them) that Germans citizens were hoping to surrender to the US instead of the Soviets.