I think at the time the bombs were dropped, no one knew of the consequences; no one knew that a nuclear arms race would emerge from, in a way, the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To say that the bomb was the wrong decision would be to ignore what the strategists at the time were thinking. At the time, while the United States knew Japan was looking for peace, when the Allies issued the ultimatum to Japan at Potsdam, there was not a clear indication of Japan's next move, so as far as America knew, the war would drag on. It's easy to have 20/20 hindsight, but in the heat of the moment, it was certainly the right move to do. We're allowed to judge now because it is now, not 1945. But if we were to judge in the same situation as the generals were in then, it was the right move.
Yes. Some people argue that the bombs killed lots of people, but the truth of the matter is: If Japan won, and the U.S. lost, what would have happened to the U.S.? What if Japan or Germany bombed us before we bombed them? The alternative is much worse, and there are no options that would call for complete peace. The situation was us or them, so if I lived back them, I would say us.
Before we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan we were planning on invading the mainland of Japan. That would of killed millions of more Americans and a lot more Japanese civilians and soldiers would of died fighting through every square foot of mainland Japan. The two bombs plus fallout killed a million, image fighting the entire country. The Japanese government was training civilians to fight the American invaders.
During the Second World War, Japan was run by the military who were power obsessed. We can talk about how there could have been negotiation, but really, this was a lie. The people appointed to "negotiate peace" were really just Japan trying to fool the rest of the world. The atomic bomb saved countless Japanese and American lives. You can call me nationalistic but I'm not even American. I don't like how many Americans think that they're always right but in the case of the atom bomb, they were right.
For one simple reason. I believe it was the only thing that saved us from nuclear annihilation. Think about it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed us the impact of these terrible weapons, in a way that no test ever could. Russia developed the bomb, after us, and both sides were busy enriching uranium for the thousands of nukes they would build. I believe that one side, or the other, might have been tempted to use them on a larger scale, if not for the sober reminder of what they can really do. Japan was an example of what would happen, on a larger scale, if the US or the USSR launched their missiles. Only a mad man would contemplate that.
I had this opinion asked earlier. I got alot of pro-american comments even before the other side's argumentation was read.
You shouldn't talk about estimates made for an invasion when the option of negotiation still stood - and was ignored.
In the Cabinet, prime minister Suzuki was appointed to achieve peace.
They would have surrendered with ONE condition: retaining emperial household. They believed they would lose it, but America did not clarify. America knew there was confusion, and after the war, the emperor remained.
It is quite obvious that through the form of diplomatic letters, we know how CURIOUS America was to see its new weapon. Also, they clearly wanted to end the war with a MESSAGE to the sovjet union.
Lastly, they did believe it was a fast way to end the war without having to appear weak.
These three arguments are the ONLY ones why the nuke was dropped. Many US generals fighting in the Pacific found them unnecessary, including MacArthur.
Now it is very unfortunate, and i hope some people would at least read this before stupidly commenting about "invasions" or "saving lives". I hope you would try to bring down my arguments, the one that negotiation was the better option (about which i have plenty more to say, so don't just go like: "there, i proved you wrong now get out!"
I don't think I'm bragging if, of all people on this site, I am the most interested in this particular history. I've spent time reading a great deal on the subject, and went to Hiroshima Peace Museum. And i can say that there is only one type of people i do not want to see in this debate: Americans who think they found the truth when they heard about an "invasion" and think it was the better option to nuke innocent civilians.
The FACTS are: Germany had surrendered so they were no threat; America were planning an invasion that would have cost lives BUT Russia invaded Japan between the 2 bombs were dropped and the Russian invasion is what caused Japan to surrender. Japan's PM said "The Russian Invasion is what finally caused us to realise all was lost". The Allies had destroyed Japanese cities in one night with 300,000 bombs. What difference did it make to Japan if the death of a city cost 1 bomb or 300,000? Japan surrendered because of the Russian Invasion, not the Atomic Bombs
The people who support the use of nuclear weapons in the Second World War are the type of people who don't understand the true history of the time. All they are interested in is proving to themselves and to everyone else is that they are always right, no matter how great their war crimes. I'm sure all the people on the "yes" side would have a different tune if they had been born on the wrong side of ocean.
Japan was already moving to surrender. That's why the response was so fast, only a couple of days, after the bombs and Soviet invasion. If they hadn't been already surrendering, they would have been like Germany, which had several armies still resisting that lasted for several weeks even after the official complete surrender. And as pointed out, U.S. invasion was extremely unlikely. In terms of ending the war, the nukes had zero effect.