It was a tragedy, but it had to be done.
We're discussing an empire that used it's pilots to smash themselves into the decks of our carriers to try and slow us down.
Their soldiers would commit Seppuku - (to perform self-disembowel) - in acknowledgement of their failures, because their honor was so important.
The nation that had lost every battle since Midway in 42' and STILL wouldn't surrender.
The nation that had it's capitol city brutally firebombed, (considered the single most destructive bombing raid in history) but STILL wouldn't surrender.
And after the detonation of Little Boy in 1945 above Hiroshima Japan STILL WOULDN'T SURRENDER.
We had been familiar with the tactics required on other Japanese occupied islands, and knew that we would quite literally have to raid the entire country door-to-door. This would mean heavy casualties, years extension of the Pacific theater, and the atrocities inflicted upon civilians, (both unavoidable and criminal).
While this WAS a show of force to the USSR and the rest of the world, implying that a culture built around honor would completely surrender to anything other than a staggering show of power is foolish.
Japan may not have been winning, but they weren't quitting. Losing does not equal lost, or ending. The war would have continued until Japan was almost wiped out.
The Atomic bomb killed less people than a land invasion would have (the Invasion might have killed a million+ Americans and millions (maybe 10,000,000+) Japanese) the bombs had a lower kill count and less long-term damage, it was more humane and reasonable. And no, the bomb didn't significantly raise birth defects. That was a shameless lie.
People say the Japanese were already losing, but that literally does NOT matter. I could be losing a game of Monopoly, and still spend 4-5 more hours playing anyways. Just because they were losing doesn't mean they were surrendering. The US actually asked them to surrender first before releasing the bomb, and the Japanese said no.
Before writing this, I read a few articles on this subject. If I say something wrong or irrelevant, please tell me.
It was the end of a horrific war, and the axis powers signed a treaty on August 2, 1945. Germany and Italy had seen that they stood almost no chance, and they surrendered. However, Japan refused to give up, and the US had a few choices. Invade Japan, which would be d-day all over again, drop a bomb on it, or give up. The US and the UK decided that dropping the bomb would kill thousands to save millions. Also, dropping the bomb would restrict Soviet power after the war. While I think it would be the right thing if it only killed people in the initial explosion, the scientists at the Mannhattan Project did not realize that radiation would kill many too. I wish that it hadn't come to dropping a bomb, but it did.
To honestly debate this argument, a person must wear historovision glasses. This means forget what you know in hindsight and pretend to live during that time period. Dropping the bomb ended the war in the pacific. Had the war continued many lives on all sides would have been lost. They estimated bombing casualties significantly lower than casualties of continued fighting. Taking off the historovision glasses, we now understand that there are long term effects of using nuclear weapons. This is why programs began for alternate uses for nuclear power.
There is undeniable proof in the historic record that Japan was going to surrender anyways. They had already started preparations before the nukes were even loaded on to the bombers. This is one of the reasons why they were able to respond so quickly right after the nuclear bombs. American leaders were no longer worried about making their enemies surrender. The nuclear bombs were more of a demonstration against the Soviets. It had nothing to do with WW2 and everything to do with the Cold War, which in fact had started a while before WW2 even ended.
I think that the U.S could still find a way to win the war without bombing Japan. I just feel sorry for the people who had that radioactive disease from the nuclear bomb. I felt that was completely unnecessary. Were we forced to do something like that? I don't know.
The Americans thought that a nuclear bomb might make a quick end to the war, but they never thought how the Japanese will be affected,
Firstly, the bomb dropped in Hiroshima killed 90,000–166,000 people, while the bomb dropped in Nagasaki killed 60,000–80,000 people.These people were civillians, not soldiers. These people may not even supported the war and might have even tried stop it.
The U.S should have found other ways to stop them.
Depends what you mean by necessary. If you mean to win the war, then no. Also the death toll probably would've been lower from an invasion than the bombings. Truman knew this. The reason we dropped the bombs was to end the war before the Soviet Union joined in the attack on Japan. Then the US and communists would have to split Japan like Korea. The cold war was on the horizon, so this was not desirable.
I'm voting for no because I'm not a big fan of mass-murder in the name of fighting communism.
The Allies were already on the verge of victory, and the bomb violated the Geneva convention laws. By targeting an urban, civilian population, the bomb would have been seen as a war crime if the Allies had lost. A weapon of that magnitude could have been used to decimate the Japanese wartime supplies, but instead was used to create as much pain and suffering as possible to force the Japanese to surrender. The second bomb was even more unnecessary. After the destruction of the first bomb, the Japanese would most likely have surrendered soon, but the Allies wanted to experiment with the effect of the bomb in Nagasaki's local geography.